<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1459 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765394</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai classified imported Epoxidised Soya Bean Oil (ESBO) under CTH 1518 as the more specific heading rather than CTH 3812, upholding the classification based on HSN explanatory notes. The tribunal held the SCN was not time-barred, calculating the limitation period from when complete documents were provided to the appellant on 04.01.2023. While rejecting claims of abrupt classification change, the tribunal found no suppression or misdeclaration by the importer who had provided all necessary documents and received departmental acceptance in one case. Confiscation and penalties were set aside due to absence of suppression, but interest on duty was upheld as it arises automatically by operation of law. Appeal was allowed in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=793657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1459 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765394</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai classified imported Epoxidised Soya Bean Oil (ESBO) under CTH 1518 as the more specific heading rather than CTH 3812, upholding the classification based on HSN explanatory notes. The tribunal held the SCN was not time-barred, calculating the limitation period from when complete documents were provided to the appellant on 04.01.2023. While rejecting claims of abrupt classification change, the tribunal found no suppression or misdeclaration by the importer who had provided all necessary documents and received departmental acceptance in one case. Confiscation and penalties were set aside due to absence of suppression, but interest on duty was upheld as it arises automatically by operation of law. Appeal was allowed in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>