<?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 1065 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795179</link>
    <description>Additional-duty exemption applied only to goods remaining specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. As the relevant textile headings had been omitted from that Schedule, the imported goods were outside the exemption notifications, which require strict interpretation. However, where ex-bond bills of entry fully disclosed the goods&#039; descriptions, tariff headings and duties and were assessed before clearance, an incorrect exemption claim alone did not establish wilful suppression or misstatement. The extended limitation period and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and duty could be recovered only within the normal limitation period where applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1065 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795179</link>
      <description>Additional-duty exemption applied only to goods remaining specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. As the relevant textile headings had been omitted from that Schedule, the imported goods were outside the exemption notifications, which require strict interpretation. However, where ex-bond bills of entry fully disclosed the goods&#039; descriptions, tariff headings and duties and were assessed before clearance, an incorrect exemption claim alone did not establish wilful suppression or misstatement. The extended limitation period and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and duty could be recovered only within the normal limitation period where applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>