<?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 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51541</link>
    <description>Penalty was held unwarranted where the dispute concerned only the correct tariff classification of medicaments under competing sub-headings. The Tribunal treated the matter as a bona fide difference of opinion on classification, not as suppression of facts or culpable misstatement. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s unsuccessful classification claim did not, by itself, attract penalty, and the deletion of penalty was sustained while the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:01:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51541</link>
      <description>Penalty was held unwarranted where the dispute concerned only the correct tariff classification of medicaments under competing sub-headings. The Tribunal treated the matter as a bona fide difference of opinion on classification, not as suppression of facts or culpable misstatement. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s unsuccessful classification claim did not, by itself, attract penalty, and the deletion of penalty was sustained while the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>