<?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 (8) TMI 917 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128198</link>
    <description>Menthol BP/USP Crystals were discussed as potentially classifiable as &quot;Mint&quot; for export cess purposes under the Spices Cess Act, with classification informed by ordinary meaning and common parlance. The materials noted that the goods were manufactured from peppermint and crystallised from peppermint oil, and that the Spices Board and the Ministry of Commerce had treated the commodity as &quot;Mint&quot;. On that basis, no prima facie case against the cess demand was shown. Relief from pre-deposit was also declined because financial hardship was not pleaded, and prior provisional clearance against bank guarantee did not eliminate the pre-deposit requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:42:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 917 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128198</link>
      <description>Menthol BP/USP Crystals were discussed as potentially classifiable as &quot;Mint&quot; for export cess purposes under the Spices Cess Act, with classification informed by ordinary meaning and common parlance. The materials noted that the goods were manufactured from peppermint and crystallised from peppermint oil, and that the Spices Board and the Ministry of Commerce had treated the commodity as &quot;Mint&quot;. On that basis, no prima facie case against the cess demand was shown. Relief from pre-deposit was also declined because financial hardship was not pleaded, and prior provisional clearance against bank guarantee did not eliminate the pre-deposit requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>