<?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>2004 (9) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112632</link>
    <description>Digestive tablets made from a mixture of spices were held not to fall under the spice heading because they did not retain the essential character of spices in common parlance or trade. The products were manufactured as tablets, marketed as digestive preparations, and were not used in cooking or as condiments. Classification therefore followed their commercial identity rather than the mere presence of spice ingredients, and the residuary heading for edible preparations applied instead of the specific spice entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 10:16:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112632</link>
      <description>Digestive tablets made from a mixture of spices were held not to fall under the spice heading because they did not retain the essential character of spices in common parlance or trade. The products were manufactured as tablets, marketed as digestive preparations, and were not used in cooking or as condiments. Classification therefore followed their commercial identity rather than the mere presence of spice ingredients, and the residuary heading for edible preparations applied instead of the specific spice entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>