<?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 (3) TMI 1385 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788630</link>
    <description>Ceramic goods described as Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog were held classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 because the technical literature, certificate evidence and departmental test reports showed the product was shaped and then fired or sintered, bringing it within Chapter 69. The alternative classification under CTH 6806 2000 was rejected for want of sufficient contrary material. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the Bills of Entry consistently disclosed the same description and classification, so there was no suppression or misrepresentation with intent to evade duty. As a result, the demand for interest and penalty failed and the classification under CTH 6902 9010 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1385 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788630</link>
      <description>Ceramic goods described as Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog were held classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 because the technical literature, certificate evidence and departmental test reports showed the product was shaped and then fired or sintered, bringing it within Chapter 69. The alternative classification under CTH 6806 2000 was rejected for want of sufficient contrary material. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the Bills of Entry consistently disclosed the same description and classification, so there was no suppression or misrepresentation with intent to evade duty. As a result, the demand for interest and penalty failed and the classification under CTH 6902 9010 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>