<?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 309 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53969</link>
    <description>Gears and shafts specially designed and exclusively used in power tillers were held classifiable under Heading 84.83 because classification must first be determined by the terms of the heading and the relevant Section or Chapter Notes, including Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI. The assessee&#039;s claim for Heading 84.32 was rejected. On limitation and penalty, the dispute was treated as a classification issue without suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, so the extended period under Section 11A was not available and the penalty under Rule 173Q was unsustainable; the demand was confined to the normal period and the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:47:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 309 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53969</link>
      <description>Gears and shafts specially designed and exclusively used in power tillers were held classifiable under Heading 84.83 because classification must first be determined by the terms of the heading and the relevant Section or Chapter Notes, including Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI. The assessee&#039;s claim for Heading 84.32 was rejected. On limitation and penalty, the dispute was treated as a classification issue without suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, so the extended period under Section 11A was not available and the penalty under Rule 173Q was unsustainable; the demand was confined to the normal period and the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>