<?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 (12) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90734</link>
    <description>A coffee substitute containing coffee and chicory was held classifiable under Heading 0901.20 because that heading expressly covers coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion. The presence of coffee, even in an unspecified or limited amount, was sufficient to keep the product within that tariff entry, so the alternative classification proposed by the appellant was not sustainable. The classification under Heading 0901.20 was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:04:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90734</link>
      <description>A coffee substitute containing coffee and chicory was held classifiable under Heading 0901.20 because that heading expressly covers coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion. The presence of coffee, even in an unspecified or limited amount, was sufficient to keep the product within that tariff entry, so the alternative classification proposed by the appellant was not sustainable. The classification under Heading 0901.20 was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>