<?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>1995 (6) TMI 34 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48733</link>
    <description>Elastic rail clips were held to remain forged goods for tariff purposes because the manufacturing steps of cutting, heating, bending, forging, quenching and tempering were treated as incidental to forging rather than as creation of a distinct residual article. The residuary Tariff Item 68 was therefore inapplicable, and the goods fell under Tariff Item 26AA(ia)/25(8). The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the record showed departmental awareness and an existing classification dispute, so the demand could not exceed the normal statutory period. With classification and limitation resolved in favour of the assessee, no independent basis remained for penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 34 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48733</link>
      <description>Elastic rail clips were held to remain forged goods for tariff purposes because the manufacturing steps of cutting, heating, bending, forging, quenching and tempering were treated as incidental to forging rather than as creation of a distinct residual article. The residuary Tariff Item 68 was therefore inapplicable, and the goods fell under Tariff Item 26AA(ia)/25(8). The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the record showed departmental awareness and an existing classification dispute, so the demand could not exceed the normal statutory period. With classification and limitation resolved in favour of the assessee, no independent basis remained for penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>