<?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>2026 (1) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784587</link>
    <description>Treated chilli seeds imported solely for sowing, rendered poisonous and unfit for human consumption, were held excluded from Chapter 09 as they are not &quot;spices&quot; or condiments; accordingly, departmental classification under CTI 0904 20 40/0904 22 12 was rejected. Applying Chapter 12 Notes and the Seeds Act definition, the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90; Rule 3(a) of the GIR was found inapplicable for comparing eight-digit subheadings, and the impugned reliance thereon was erroneous; classification was granted as claimed by the importer. The extended period under s.28 could not be invoked absent a finding of suppression with intent to evade, especially where Bills of Entry were physically assessed; demand beyond the normal period failed. Appeal allowed and the appellate order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784587</link>
      <description>Treated chilli seeds imported solely for sowing, rendered poisonous and unfit for human consumption, were held excluded from Chapter 09 as they are not &quot;spices&quot; or condiments; accordingly, departmental classification under CTI 0904 20 40/0904 22 12 was rejected. Applying Chapter 12 Notes and the Seeds Act definition, the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90; Rule 3(a) of the GIR was found inapplicable for comparing eight-digit subheadings, and the impugned reliance thereon was erroneous; classification was granted as claimed by the importer. The extended period under s.28 could not be invoked absent a finding of suppression with intent to evade, especially where Bills of Entry were physically assessed; demand beyond the normal period failed. Appeal allowed and the appellate order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>