<?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>2009 (4) TMI 700 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126314</link>
    <description>Packed food supplied to aircrafts was treated as prima facie excisable despite short shelf life, because it was packed and kept under controlled temperature for onboard consumption. The Tribunal also found prima facie support for the claim that the goods could fall within the nil-rate entry for food preparations not cleared in sealed containers, noting the department&#039;s tariff classification was broad and no specific entry covered ready-to-eat packaged food. As the nil-rate entry was inserted only from 04.05.2006, the demand for March and April 2006 was prima facie outside its scope. Waiver was granted in part, with pre-deposit confined to duty for those two months and the balance stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:08:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 700 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126314</link>
      <description>Packed food supplied to aircrafts was treated as prima facie excisable despite short shelf life, because it was packed and kept under controlled temperature for onboard consumption. The Tribunal also found prima facie support for the claim that the goods could fall within the nil-rate entry for food preparations not cleared in sealed containers, noting the department&#039;s tariff classification was broad and no specific entry covered ready-to-eat packaged food. As the nil-rate entry was inserted only from 04.05.2006, the demand for March and April 2006 was prima facie outside its scope. Waiver was granted in part, with pre-deposit confined to duty for those two months and the balance stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>