All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
