https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51649 A penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside because the penalty order did not specify the precise sub-clause alleged to have been contravened, making the statutory basis for punishment insufficiently particularised. The Tribunal also examined tariff classification and found no reason to disturb the Commissioner's view that the products fell under sub-heading 1901.19 rather than Heading 04.04. On the material before it, the presence of stabilisers and the nature of the goods did not justify interference, so the classification and corresponding duty demand were upheld. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:40:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51649 A penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside because the penalty order did not specify the precise sub-clause alleged to have been contravened, making the statutory basis for punishment insufficiently particularised. The Tribunal also examined tariff classification and found no reason to disturb the Commissioner's view that the products fell under sub-heading 1901.19 rather than Heading 04.04. On the material before it, the presence of stabilisers and the nature of the goods did not justify interference, so the classification and corresponding duty demand were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51649