<?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>2000 (8) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49892</link>
    <description>Extruded plastic meshes cleared in running length were classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 because the goods were finished meshes as cleared, and not complete insect screens, fencing or similar barriers under sub-headings 3925.30 and 3925.99. Classification had to follow the tariff heading and chapter notes, and Note 11 to Chapter 39 did not support reclassification as builders&#039; ware through Rule 2(a). The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process and filed declarations, while the department failed to show suppression or withholding of material facts. The duty demand, with consequential penal and confiscatory reliefs, was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49892</link>
      <description>Extruded plastic meshes cleared in running length were classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 because the goods were finished meshes as cleared, and not complete insect screens, fencing or similar barriers under sub-headings 3925.30 and 3925.99. Classification had to follow the tariff heading and chapter notes, and Note 11 to Chapter 39 did not support reclassification as builders&#039; ware through Rule 2(a). The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process and filed declarations, while the department failed to show suppression or withholding of material facts. The duty demand, with consequential penal and confiscatory reliefs, was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>