<?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 (6) TMI 259 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86468</link>
    <description>Goods described as energy or weaning food were treated as baby food specially prepared for infants under Notification 17/70 because their formulation was developed to meet infant nutritional needs, including the pre-natal and immediate post-natal context. The fact that the product could also be consumed by pregnant women and lactating mothers did not change its essential character, since limited additional consumption did not destroy its identity as infant food. Packing in unit containers was noted, but the ISI standard was not accepted as decisive for the exemption question. The goods were therefore held eligible for exemption and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:52:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 259 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86468</link>
      <description>Goods described as energy or weaning food were treated as baby food specially prepared for infants under Notification 17/70 because their formulation was developed to meet infant nutritional needs, including the pre-natal and immediate post-natal context. The fact that the product could also be consumed by pregnant women and lactating mothers did not change its essential character, since limited additional consumption did not destroy its identity as infant food. Packing in unit containers was noted, but the ISI standard was not accepted as decisive for the exemption question. The goods were therefore held eligible for exemption and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>