<?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>Imported Polished Marble Slabs Classified Under Customs Tariff Heading, Notification No. 04/2006-CE Benefits Upheld</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90192</link>
    <description>The CESTAT upheld the appellant&#039;s classification of imported polished marble slabs under the relevant Customs Tariff Heading, entitling them to benefit under Notification No. 04/2006-CE. The Tribunal relied on a binding TRU circular clarifying the tariff classification, which was not contrary to statutory provisions or judicial interpretation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the circular was deemed clarificatory and retrospective, mandating departmental compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal found no willful misstatement of facts and ruled that the denial of notification benefits was unjustified. The impugned order was quashed, and the appeal allowed, rendering ancillary issues such as interest and penalties moot.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Imported Polished Marble Slabs Classified Under Customs Tariff Heading, Notification No. 04/2006-CE Benefits Upheld</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90192</link>
      <description>The CESTAT upheld the appellant&#039;s classification of imported polished marble slabs under the relevant Customs Tariff Heading, entitling them to benefit under Notification No. 04/2006-CE. The Tribunal relied on a binding TRU circular clarifying the tariff classification, which was not contrary to statutory provisions or judicial interpretation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the circular was deemed clarificatory and retrospective, mandating departmental compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal found no willful misstatement of facts and ruled that the denial of notification benefits was unjustified. The impugned order was quashed, and the appeal allowed, rendering ancillary issues such as interest and penalties moot.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>