<?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>2024 (7) TMI 103 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754883</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Chandigarh held that a mixture of Melamine Formaldehyde Resin and Cardanol Phenolic Formaldehyde used as adhesive/glue/resin for manufacturing laminates is classifiable under Chapter 35-06, not Chapter 39-09 as claimed by the Department. The Tribunal relied on established precedents including Virgo Industries and Wood Stock Laminates cases. The Revenue failed to establish marketability of the product through market inquiry or prove commercial buying/selling. Additionally, substantial demand up to December 2010 was time-barred as the Department had knowledge of Melamine Formaldehyde usage since 2006 but issued show cause notice after normal limitation period expired. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 103 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754883</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Chandigarh held that a mixture of Melamine Formaldehyde Resin and Cardanol Phenolic Formaldehyde used as adhesive/glue/resin for manufacturing laminates is classifiable under Chapter 35-06, not Chapter 39-09 as claimed by the Department. The Tribunal relied on established precedents including Virgo Industries and Wood Stock Laminates cases. The Revenue failed to establish marketability of the product through market inquiry or prove commercial buying/selling. Additionally, substantial demand up to December 2010 was time-barred as the Department had knowledge of Melamine Formaldehyde usage since 2006 but issued show cause notice after normal limitation period expired. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>