<?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 (9) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84463</link>
    <description>A milk-based preparation containing malt extract, milk or milk powder, sugar and additives, sold in 200 g unit containers, was held to fall within Tariff Item 1-B as prepared or preserved food, including goods containing milk. Classification under Item 68 was rejected because the cited trade notice concerned protein food supplements generally and did not cover this product. Exemption was also denied because the preparation fell within the exclusion in Sl. No. 14 of Notification No. 17/70 dated 1-3-1970, being a milk-containing preparation with malt extract capable of use as a beverage. The impugned classification and refusal of exemption were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84463</link>
      <description>A milk-based preparation containing malt extract, milk or milk powder, sugar and additives, sold in 200 g unit containers, was held to fall within Tariff Item 1-B as prepared or preserved food, including goods containing milk. Classification under Item 68 was rejected because the cited trade notice concerned protein food supplements generally and did not cover this product. Exemption was also denied because the preparation fell within the exclusion in Sl. No. 14 of Notification No. 17/70 dated 1-3-1970, being a milk-containing preparation with malt extract capable of use as a beverage. The impugned classification and refusal of exemption were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>