<?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 205 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35194</link>
    <description>Iso-Heptane was treated as classifiable under heading 2710.19 as motor spirit rather than as a chemical under heading 2901.10, because the laboratory characteristics and purchaser evidence of intended blending with motor spirit supported tariff placement under the motor spirit heading. The claim to the chemical classification was rejected. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the classification list disclosed the manufacturing process and product description, and there was no proof of misdeclaration or suppression of facts. The notice was therefore time barred, and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 205 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35194</link>
      <description>Iso-Heptane was treated as classifiable under heading 2710.19 as motor spirit rather than as a chemical under heading 2901.10, because the laboratory characteristics and purchaser evidence of intended blending with motor spirit supported tariff placement under the motor spirit heading. The claim to the chemical classification was rejected. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the classification list disclosed the manufacturing process and product description, and there was no proof of misdeclaration or suppression of facts. The notice was therefore time barred, and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>