https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90712 Products marketed as Mango Split-YD and Raspberry Split-YD were examined for tariff classification by reference to their marketed form and the relevant Food Adulteration definition of kulfi. On the facts found, they were not regarded as ice-cream or kulfi, but they still fell within the exemption for edible ices under Notification No. 12/90-C.E. The alternative tariff heading was not entertained because it had not been raised before the lower authorities, and the objection based on the wrapper description was rejected as unsupported since the composition recorded in the order-in-original was not shown to be incorrect. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:51:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90712 Products marketed as Mango Split-YD and Raspberry Split-YD were examined for tariff classification by reference to their marketed form and the relevant Food Adulteration definition of kulfi. On the facts found, they were not regarded as ice-cream or kulfi, but they still fell within the exemption for edible ices under Notification No. 12/90-C.E. The alternative tariff heading was not entertained because it had not been raised before the lower authorities, and the objection based on the wrapper description was rejected as unsupported since the composition recorded in the order-in-original was not shown to be incorrect. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90712