Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the goods manufactured and cleared as other than ice-cream were entitled to nil rate of duty under the relevant exemption notifications, and whether the definition of ice-cream in the notifications could be supplemented by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act standard.
Analysis: The notifications themselves contained the governing definition of ice-cream and therefore the classification issue had to be decided on that basis alone. The standard under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act could not be imported to displace the notification's own language. The notification required that the preparation be commonly known as ice-cream and also answered the description of a milk-based preparation. The record showed that the goods in question were marketed and cleared as other than ice-cream, and no material was produced to show that they were commonly known as ice-cream in the market.
Conclusion: The goods were held to be other than ice-cream and therefore eligible for the nil rate benefit under the applicable serial entry, with the Revenue's appeals failing.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification contains its own definition, the goods must be classified strictly by that definition and not by importing criteria from another statute; if the common parlance requirement is not satisfied, the exemption entry applicable to goods other than the excluded product applies.