<?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>2026 (7) TMI 263 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794377</link>
    <description>ELFA diagnostic kits were held to fall within the ELISA-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. and the corresponding IGST notification because both kits operated on the same underlying immunological principle, and the difference was only in signal detection mode. The exemption entry was read in light of technical literature, expert clarifications and the beneficial object of the notification, so denial of concessional duty and IGST was unsustainable. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was also found unsustainable because the dispute was a bona fide classification and exemption issue without wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, and the related demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties accordingly fell away.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 263 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794377</link>
      <description>ELFA diagnostic kits were held to fall within the ELISA-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. and the corresponding IGST notification because both kits operated on the same underlying immunological principle, and the difference was only in signal detection mode. The exemption entry was read in light of technical literature, expert clarifications and the beneficial object of the notification, so denial of concessional duty and IGST was unsustainable. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was also found unsustainable because the dispute was a bona fide classification and exemption issue without wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, and the related demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties accordingly fell away.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>