<?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>2002 (5) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51276</link>
    <description>A chemically treated bentonite product used for decolourising oils and fats was classified as an activated natural mineral product under Heading 38.02, because acid treatment modified its superficial structure and took it beyond a mere mineral substance under Heading 25.05. The demand beyond the normal six-month period was barred, as the assessee had disclosed the product description and manufacturing process and there was no proof of wilful suppression or misstatement. Penalties and confiscation were also set aside because the ingredients for extended limitation, mens rea for confiscation, and the basis for penal liability under the relevant rules were not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51276</link>
      <description>A chemically treated bentonite product used for decolourising oils and fats was classified as an activated natural mineral product under Heading 38.02, because acid treatment modified its superficial structure and took it beyond a mere mineral substance under Heading 25.05. The demand beyond the normal six-month period was barred, as the assessee had disclosed the product description and manufacturing process and there was no proof of wilful suppression or misstatement. Penalties and confiscation were also set aside because the ingredients for extended limitation, mens rea for confiscation, and the basis for penal liability under the relevant rules were not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>