<?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>1988 (4) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73742</link>
    <description>Bicarbonate of soda remained classifiable and dutiable under Tariff Item 14AA before 1-3-1986 and under Heading 2805.30 thereafter because it was specifically named in the tariff and Chapter Note 2(a) treated chemically defined compounds as covered even with impurities. The prescribed I.S.I. purity standard was irrelevant to classification, and sub-standard purity did not remove the product from the tariff entry. Its use as an intermediate product for captive consumption also did not exclude excise duty, since excise attaches to manufacture and not to marketability where the goods answer the tariff description. The duty demand and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:47:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73742</link>
      <description>Bicarbonate of soda remained classifiable and dutiable under Tariff Item 14AA before 1-3-1986 and under Heading 2805.30 thereafter because it was specifically named in the tariff and Chapter Note 2(a) treated chemically defined compounds as covered even with impurities. The prescribed I.S.I. purity standard was irrelevant to classification, and sub-standard purity did not remove the product from the tariff entry. Its use as an intermediate product for captive consumption also did not exclude excise duty, since excise attaches to manufacture and not to marketability where the goods answer the tariff description. The duty demand and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>