<?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 (7) TMI 160 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51435</link>
    <description>Emami Talcum Powder was discussed on the question whether its manufacture with ethyl alcohol took it out of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff and within the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The contemporaneous statutory records showing receipt, use, clearances and duty payment under the 1955 Act were not rebutted, and sample results from another period could not displace that evidence; the product was therefore not proved classifiable under Chapter 33 for the relevant period. On limitation, disclosure in the classification list, regular returns and duty payment negated suppression or misstatement, so the extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:25:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 160 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51435</link>
      <description>Emami Talcum Powder was discussed on the question whether its manufacture with ethyl alcohol took it out of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff and within the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The contemporaneous statutory records showing receipt, use, clearances and duty payment under the 1955 Act were not rebutted, and sample results from another period could not displace that evidence; the product was therefore not proved classifiable under Chapter 33 for the relevant period. On limitation, disclosure in the classification list, regular returns and duty payment negated suppression or misstatement, so the extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>