<?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>2001 (5) TMI 68 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48883</link>
    <description>Vanadium sludge consisting substantially of sodium orthovanadate was treated as an oxometallic compound and classified under Chapter Heading 28.41, because Chapter 26.20 was inapplicable to a product that was not an ash or residue of the kind covered by that heading. The extended limitation period for differential duty could not be invoked where the classification list had been disclosed to the Department and no suppression was shown; duty was confined to the normal period preceding the notice. Penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained for clearances made before that provision came into force, and the interest direction in the impugned order also could not stand in its imposed form.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:23:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 68 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48883</link>
      <description>Vanadium sludge consisting substantially of sodium orthovanadate was treated as an oxometallic compound and classified under Chapter Heading 28.41, because Chapter 26.20 was inapplicable to a product that was not an ash or residue of the kind covered by that heading. The extended limitation period for differential duty could not be invoked where the classification list had been disclosed to the Department and no suppression was shown; duty was confined to the normal period preceding the notice. Penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained for clearances made before that provision came into force, and the interest direction in the impugned order also could not stand in its imposed form.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>