<?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>1996 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84957</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of &quot;Pan Chatni&quot; depended on its composition, use and common parlance identity rather than the manufacturer&#039;s label. The expression &quot;and the like&quot; associated with sauces and ketchup was read using noscitur a sociis, limiting it to edible accompaniments used with food. As the product was used with pan rather than eatables generally, it did not qualify as chatni or a like preparation under the claimed sauces and ketchup entry. It was classifiable as an edible preparation under sub-heading 2107.91, and the claimed chatni exemption did not apply because an exemption cannot alter the goods&#039; proper tariff classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:38:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84957</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of &quot;Pan Chatni&quot; depended on its composition, use and common parlance identity rather than the manufacturer&#039;s label. The expression &quot;and the like&quot; associated with sauces and ketchup was read using noscitur a sociis, limiting it to edible accompaniments used with food. As the product was used with pan rather than eatables generally, it did not qualify as chatni or a like preparation under the claimed sauces and ketchup entry. It was classifiable as an edible preparation under sub-heading 2107.91, and the claimed chatni exemption did not apply because an exemption cannot alter the goods&#039; proper tariff classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>