<?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 (9) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83571</link>
    <description>A tonic or food supplement made by mixing chemical ingredients in specified proportions was treated as a synthetic preparation and not as &quot;prepared or preserved food&quot; in the ordinary sense. On that basis, it fell under the residuary Tariff Item 68 rather than Tariff Item 1B. Exemption under Notification No. 17/70 was unavailable because it depended on the goods first answering the description of prepared or preserved food. Exemption under Notification No. 234/82 also failed because the product was not the kind of food product or food preparation covered by that schedule. The departmental appeal therefore succeeded and the exemption claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:41:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83571</link>
      <description>A tonic or food supplement made by mixing chemical ingredients in specified proportions was treated as a synthetic preparation and not as &quot;prepared or preserved food&quot; in the ordinary sense. On that basis, it fell under the residuary Tariff Item 68 rather than Tariff Item 1B. Exemption under Notification No. 17/70 was unavailable because it depended on the goods first answering the description of prepared or preserved food. Exemption under Notification No. 234/82 also failed because the product was not the kind of food product or food preparation covered by that schedule. The departmental appeal therefore succeeded and the exemption claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>