<?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>1994 (8) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83420</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of ROVIMIX-Stay C turned on whether it was a preparation used in animal feeding under heading 2309 or a Vitamin C derivative under heading 2936.27. The note states that heading 23.09 applies to products of a kind used in animal feeding obtained by processing vegetable or animal materials, which was not shown on the material before the Tribunal; the claimed classification under 2309.00 was therefore not accepted. It also records that the assessment was ex parte, the Deputy Chief Chemist&#039;s report was not shown to the appellants, and the lower authority relied on that report without independent application of mind, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:58:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83420</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of ROVIMIX-Stay C turned on whether it was a preparation used in animal feeding under heading 2309 or a Vitamin C derivative under heading 2936.27. The note states that heading 23.09 applies to products of a kind used in animal feeding obtained by processing vegetable or animal materials, which was not shown on the material before the Tribunal; the claimed classification under 2309.00 was therefore not accepted. It also records that the assessment was ex parte, the Deputy Chief Chemist&#039;s report was not shown to the appellants, and the lower authority relied on that report without independent application of mind, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>