<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (2) TMI 198 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35133</link>
    <description>Tariff classification was required to be determined by the character of the goods as cleared from the factory, not by their later use by the buyer. Pressed and stamped articles such as clamps, washers, connector pins and covers were classified under Chapter 73 as iron and steel articles, rather than as identifiable parts of refrigerators under Heading 8418.90, with departmental circulars and a trade notice supporting that view. Because the dispute was one of classification and the assessee had a bona fide basis for its position, suppression or wilful default was not established, so the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 198 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35133</link>
      <description>Tariff classification was required to be determined by the character of the goods as cleared from the factory, not by their later use by the buyer. Pressed and stamped articles such as clamps, washers, connector pins and covers were classified under Chapter 73 as iron and steel articles, rather than as identifiable parts of refrigerators under Heading 8418.90, with departmental circulars and a trade notice supporting that view. Because the dispute was one of classification and the assessee had a bona fide basis for its position, suppression or wilful default was not established, so the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>