<?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>2005 (6) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115550</link>
    <description>A sugar-based ready-to-consume edible preparation marketed as jelly bites was treated as falling within the exemption entry for &quot;sweetmeats or similar edible preparations&quot; under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The term &quot;sweet meat&quot; was read as a generic description covering edible preparations under the residual Heading 2108.99, and not as a narrow reference only to traditional mithai sold at halwai shops. The broader expression &quot;similar edible preparations&quot; was also applied to the product. The earlier denial based on the place of sale or manufacture was rejected because the predecessor notification&#039;s factory-related limitation had been removed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 18:08:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115550</link>
      <description>A sugar-based ready-to-consume edible preparation marketed as jelly bites was treated as falling within the exemption entry for &quot;sweetmeats or similar edible preparations&quot; under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The term &quot;sweet meat&quot; was read as a generic description covering edible preparations under the residual Heading 2108.99, and not as a narrow reference only to traditional mithai sold at halwai shops. The broader expression &quot;similar edible preparations&quot; was also applied to the product. The earlier denial based on the place of sale or manufacture was rejected because the predecessor notification&#039;s factory-related limitation had been removed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>