<?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 (6) TMI 72 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54077</link>
    <description>A demand cannot be sustained where the adjudication travels beyond the show cause notice: a notice issued on Chapter 13 could not support classification under Chapter 30, so the classification was invalid. Semi-finished herbal extracts cleared from the Delhi unit were not shown to be marketable in that condition, were restricted for further processing, and therefore did not constitute excisable goods at that stage. The extended period also failed because the authorities were aware of the manufacturing activity, declarations had been filed, and suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:09:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 72 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54077</link>
      <description>A demand cannot be sustained where the adjudication travels beyond the show cause notice: a notice issued on Chapter 13 could not support classification under Chapter 30, so the classification was invalid. Semi-finished herbal extracts cleared from the Delhi unit were not shown to be marketable in that condition, were restricted for further processing, and therefore did not constitute excisable goods at that stage. The extended period also failed because the authorities were aware of the manufacturing activity, declarations had been filed, and suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>