<?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>2005 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47219</link>
    <description>Polyester chips emerging from granulators remained classifiable as primary forms of polyethylene terephthalate under Heading 39.07, because later dust contamination or spillage during bagging did not convert an identifiable primary product into waste under Heading 39.15. Chapter Note 6 and Note 7, read with the HSN guidance, supported classification by the product&#039;s character at emergence and its commercial identity, and the specific primary-form entry prevailed over the general waste heading. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was upheld because the factual basis for claiming waste classification was not fully disclosed, leaving the department&#039;s case of misdeclaration intact. The ancillary notification claim was left for separate examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:52:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47219</link>
      <description>Polyester chips emerging from granulators remained classifiable as primary forms of polyethylene terephthalate under Heading 39.07, because later dust contamination or spillage during bagging did not convert an identifiable primary product into waste under Heading 39.15. Chapter Note 6 and Note 7, read with the HSN guidance, supported classification by the product&#039;s character at emergence and its commercial identity, and the specific primary-form entry prevailed over the general waste heading. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was upheld because the factual basis for claiming waste classification was not fully disclosed, leaving the department&#039;s case of misdeclaration intact. The ancillary notification claim was left for separate examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>