<?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 (9) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92495</link>
    <description>The tribunal determined that &#039;Sunova-Spirulina Capsule&#039; is not excisable and remains a natural product under HSN Heading 12.12. The processes involved, including adding binding agents, were not considered manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The product was not classified under Tariff Heading 21.08 as an edible preparation. As a result, the appeal was successful, and the previous order was overturned, providing relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:10:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 318 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92495</link>
      <description>The tribunal determined that &#039;Sunova-Spirulina Capsule&#039; is not excisable and remains a natural product under HSN Heading 12.12. The processes involved, including adding binding agents, were not considered manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The product was not classified under Tariff Heading 21.08 as an edible preparation. As a result, the appeal was successful, and the previous order was overturned, providing relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>