<?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>1999 (5) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91792</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of spices and masala-like mixtures had to be reconsidered because binding departmental circulars and the Chapter 9 amendment were not properly applied. The circular stated that mixtures retaining the essential character of spices fall under Chapter 9, and Chapter Note 3 expressly covered spices in whole, crushed or powdered form, including such mixtures and products commonly known as masalas. The Tribunal held that the original authority had failed to give effect to the circular or adequately address the amended note, and the limitation objection also required fresh examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 205 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91792</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of spices and masala-like mixtures had to be reconsidered because binding departmental circulars and the Chapter 9 amendment were not properly applied. The circular stated that mixtures retaining the essential character of spices fall under Chapter 9, and Chapter Note 3 expressly covered spices in whole, crushed or powdered form, including such mixtures and products commonly known as masalas. The Tribunal held that the original authority had failed to give effect to the circular or adequately address the amended note, and the limitation objection also required fresh examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>