<?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>2005 (2) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53823</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of &#039;guar dal flour&#039; under Chapter Heading 1101.00, setting aside the duty and interest demands, along with the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appeal was allowed, and the order was issued in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal ruled the invocation of the extended period of limitation as incorrect and unsustainable due to the lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53823</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of &#039;guar dal flour&#039; under Chapter Heading 1101.00, setting aside the duty and interest demands, along with the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appeal was allowed, and the order was issued in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal ruled the invocation of the extended period of limitation as incorrect and unsustainable due to the lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>