<?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 (6) TMI 1517 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773404</link>
    <description>Filter elements were initially classified under Tariff Item 84219900 on a bona fide understanding, and a later Board circular clarified that their classification depends on the constituent material, with paper-based elements falling under the relevant paper headings while filters remain under Heading 84.21. Because the importer had filed invoices, catalogues and technical write-ups, and there was no requirement to declare the constituent material in the Bill of Entry, suppression of material facts or misdeclaration for the past period was not established. The foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation therefore failed, and the past-period demand, interest and penalty were set aside. Classification on the clarified basis was affirmed for the subsequent period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:42:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1517 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773404</link>
      <description>Filter elements were initially classified under Tariff Item 84219900 on a bona fide understanding, and a later Board circular clarified that their classification depends on the constituent material, with paper-based elements falling under the relevant paper headings while filters remain under Heading 84.21. Because the importer had filed invoices, catalogues and technical write-ups, and there was no requirement to declare the constituent material in the Bill of Entry, suppression of material facts or misdeclaration for the past period was not established. The foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation therefore failed, and the past-period demand, interest and penalty were set aside. Classification on the clarified basis was affirmed for the subsequent period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>