<?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 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51634</link>
    <description>Slag-wool and rock-wool were held classifiable under Heading 6803.00 because a specifically named tariff entry prevails over a broader or residuary description under Rule 3(a); Heading 6807.10 was rejected. The Tribunal also treated rock-wool in its pristine form as falling within Heading 6803, including where blast furnace slag was used in manufacture. On limitation, the open classification dispute and absence of an approved revised classification list kept the extended period available, so the duty demand was not time-barred. Penalty under Section 11AC and confiscation were set aside because the dispute was bona fide.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51634</link>
      <description>Slag-wool and rock-wool were held classifiable under Heading 6803.00 because a specifically named tariff entry prevails over a broader or residuary description under Rule 3(a); Heading 6807.10 was rejected. The Tribunal also treated rock-wool in its pristine form as falling within Heading 6803, including where blast furnace slag was used in manufacture. On limitation, the open classification dispute and absence of an approved revised classification list kept the extended period available, so the duty demand was not time-barred. Penalty under Section 11AC and confiscation were set aside because the dispute was bona fide.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>