<?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>1995 (3) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84039</link>
    <description>Dehydrated castor oil was discussed as retaining its character as a vegetable oil despite dehydration, so long as the process did not produce a distinct commercial commodity; on that reasoning, it continued to fall under Tariff Item 12 rather than Tariff Item 68. The same reasoning preserved eligibility for Notification 69/84, because the notification denied exemption only to the specified processed oils and the product was not shown to have undergone those processes. The note also records a dissent that dehydration materially altered the product into a distinct commodity, which would have shifted it to Tariff Item 68 and denied exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:32:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84039</link>
      <description>Dehydrated castor oil was discussed as retaining its character as a vegetable oil despite dehydration, so long as the process did not produce a distinct commercial commodity; on that reasoning, it continued to fall under Tariff Item 12 rather than Tariff Item 68. The same reasoning preserved eligibility for Notification 69/84, because the notification denied exemption only to the specified processed oils and the product was not shown to have undergone those processes. The note also records a dissent that dehydration materially altered the product into a distinct commodity, which would have shifted it to Tariff Item 68 and denied exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>