<?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 227 - CEGAT, COURT NO.III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51667</link>
    <description>Approved classification lists under Chapter 30 prevented the department from later invoking extended limitation on the basis of suppression or misdeclaration. The lists had been filed repeatedly, accepted after enquiry, and even a departmental sample examination in 1991 did not prompt a contemporaneous claim that the goods were cosmetics or toilet preparations under Chapter 33. On those facts, the record did not show concealment of material facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period was therefore unavailable, the demand was time-barred, and the consequential order confirming duty and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:14:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 227 - CEGAT, COURT NO.III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51667</link>
      <description>Approved classification lists under Chapter 30 prevented the department from later invoking extended limitation on the basis of suppression or misdeclaration. The lists had been filed repeatedly, accepted after enquiry, and even a departmental sample examination in 1991 did not prompt a contemporaneous claim that the goods were cosmetics or toilet preparations under Chapter 33. On those facts, the record did not show concealment of material facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period was therefore unavailable, the demand was time-barred, and the consequential order confirming duty and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>