<?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 (11) TMI 192 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51683</link>
    <description>Intermediate fabric was held classifiable under Heading 54.09 because greig fabric emerged after weaving and underwent heat treatment, and the tariff entry covered fabrics subjected to the specified process; proof of more than one process was not required. The goods were treated as marketable since actual sale was unnecessary and no material showed incapability of being bought and sold. Suppression was found because manufacture and captive use were not disclosed and the classification list was not filed, so the extended limitation period applied. Penalty was not sustained on the precedent relied upon, and the question whether duty was payable for the initial nil-basic-duty period was remitted for limited factual verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 192 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51683</link>
      <description>Intermediate fabric was held classifiable under Heading 54.09 because greig fabric emerged after weaving and underwent heat treatment, and the tariff entry covered fabrics subjected to the specified process; proof of more than one process was not required. The goods were treated as marketable since actual sale was unnecessary and no material showed incapability of being bought and sold. Suppression was found because manufacture and captive use were not disclosed and the classification list was not filed, so the extended limitation period applied. Penalty was not sustained on the precedent relied upon, and the question whether duty was payable for the initial nil-basic-duty period was remitted for limited factual verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>