<?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>2003 (6) TMI 254 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107590</link>
    <description>Classification of imported calcium nitrate solution had to be determined from the tariff headings and chapter notes, not by commercial description or prior assessment orders. Heading 31.02 covered nitrogenous fertilizers, including mixtures of calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate, while Heading 31.05 was residuary and did not cover separate chemically defined compounds. The record did not conclusively show whether the ammonium nitrate was only an impurity from manufacture; if so, the product would be treated as calcium nitrate, a separate chemically defined compound classifiable in Chapter 28. Because that factual issue had not been properly examined, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with evidence from both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 254 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107590</link>
      <description>Classification of imported calcium nitrate solution had to be determined from the tariff headings and chapter notes, not by commercial description or prior assessment orders. Heading 31.02 covered nitrogenous fertilizers, including mixtures of calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate, while Heading 31.05 was residuary and did not cover separate chemically defined compounds. The record did not conclusively show whether the ammonium nitrate was only an impurity from manufacture; if so, the product would be treated as calcium nitrate, a separate chemically defined compound classifiable in Chapter 28. Because that factual issue had not been properly examined, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with evidence from both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>