<?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>1997 (8) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87232</link>
    <description>Calcium propionate was held classifiable as an organic chemical under Chapter 29, not as a fungicide under Chapter 38. Classification turned on the tariff description and the product&#039;s chemical character as the calcium salt of propionic acid, rather than its end use in preventing fungus in baked goods. The analysis noted that Chapter 38 covered insecticides, fungicides and similar products, while Chapter 29 covered saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids and their derivatives. On that basis, the product could not be treated as a miscellaneous chemical product under Chapter 38 merely because of its preservative use. The classification issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:04:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87232</link>
      <description>Calcium propionate was held classifiable as an organic chemical under Chapter 29, not as a fungicide under Chapter 38. Classification turned on the tariff description and the product&#039;s chemical character as the calcium salt of propionic acid, rather than its end use in preventing fungus in baked goods. The analysis noted that Chapter 38 covered insecticides, fungicides and similar products, while Chapter 29 covered saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids and their derivatives. On that basis, the product could not be treated as a miscellaneous chemical product under Chapter 38 merely because of its preservative use. The classification issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>