<?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 (10) TMI 322 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759723</link>
    <description>Captively consumed adhesive mixture used in laminate manufacture was treated as prepared glue under Heading 3506, not as resin under Heading 3909, so exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE could not be denied on the department&#039;s classification theory and the resulting duty demand on that basis was unsustainable. Because the assessee&#039;s declaration disclosed the raw materials and in-house process, and the department already knew the relevant facts, suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was not established for the substantial part of the demand, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and that demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 322 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759723</link>
      <description>Captively consumed adhesive mixture used in laminate manufacture was treated as prepared glue under Heading 3506, not as resin under Heading 3909, so exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE could not be denied on the department&#039;s classification theory and the resulting duty demand on that basis was unsustainable. Because the assessee&#039;s declaration disclosed the raw materials and in-house process, and the department already knew the relevant facts, suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was not established for the substantial part of the demand, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and that demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>