<?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 (3) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47239</link>
    <description>Where a Board circular clarified the correct tariff classification, the assessee was entitled to clear the goods under that classification after the earlier classification list had been revised under protest. The failure to file a fresh classification list was only a procedural default and could attract penalty consequences, but it did not justify a duty demand under Rule 9(2). The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47239</link>
      <description>Where a Board circular clarified the correct tariff classification, the assessee was entitled to clear the goods under that classification after the earlier classification list had been revised under protest. The failure to file a fresh classification list was only a procedural default and could attract penalty consequences, but it did not justify a duty demand under Rule 9(2). The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>