<?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>1990 (9) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48699</link>
    <description>A composite heating element made from glass fibre yarn, glass fibre fabric, asbestos yarn, nichrome wire and MS ring was treated as falling outside Tariff Item 22F(iv) because that entry for &quot;manufactures therefrom&quot; was confined to goods directly manufactured from the specified mineral fibres or yarn, and the composite article did not derive its commercial identity from those materials alone. It was therefore placed under Tariff Item 68. On limitation, the longer period could not be invoked absent evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; a genuine belief on excisability was insufficient to justify extended demand and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2023 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48699</link>
      <description>A composite heating element made from glass fibre yarn, glass fibre fabric, asbestos yarn, nichrome wire and MS ring was treated as falling outside Tariff Item 22F(iv) because that entry for &quot;manufactures therefrom&quot; was confined to goods directly manufactured from the specified mineral fibres or yarn, and the composite article did not derive its commercial identity from those materials alone. It was therefore placed under Tariff Item 68. On limitation, the longer period could not be invoked absent evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; a genuine belief on excisability was insufficient to justify extended demand and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>