<?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>2001 (5) TMI 485 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</link>
    <description>Mineral water marketed as &quot;Trupthi&quot; was treated as excisable and classifiable under sub-heading 2201.90 for the period before 16-3-1995 because the manufacturing process involved chlorine treatment, addition of calcium carbonate and other chemicals, mineral adjustment, filtration and ultraviolet radiation before bottling. The Board&#039;s 20-12-1994 circular was applied to distinguish treated water with added mineral salts, which fell within mineral water, from merely clarified or purified water, which did not. The majority view held that the product met that tariff description even before Chapter Note 2 in Chapter 22 was inserted; the contrary view denying dutiability before 16-3-1995 was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 485 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</link>
      <description>Mineral water marketed as &quot;Trupthi&quot; was treated as excisable and classifiable under sub-heading 2201.90 for the period before 16-3-1995 because the manufacturing process involved chlorine treatment, addition of calcium carbonate and other chemicals, mineral adjustment, filtration and ultraviolet radiation before bottling. The Board&#039;s 20-12-1994 circular was applied to distinguish treated water with added mineral salts, which fell within mineral water, from merely clarified or purified water, which did not. The majority view held that the product met that tariff description even before Chapter Note 2 in Chapter 22 was inserted; the contrary view denying dutiability before 16-3-1995 was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>