<?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 (12) TMI 786 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153863</link>
    <description>Flavour compounds under CSH 3302.10 used to manufacture beverages, and containing alcohol above 0.5% by volume, were treated as compound alcoholic preparations falling within the exclusion in Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.; older explanatory notes and an earlier notification could not control the later exemption entry. The exemption was therefore unavailable for the beverage-use goods, and duty was sustained. For the remaining flavour compounds, the nature of use needed a categorical finding, so the matter was remanded for fresh determination. The consequential penalties, including those relating to the customs house agent, were also sent back for reconsideration with the revised liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 786 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153863</link>
      <description>Flavour compounds under CSH 3302.10 used to manufacture beverages, and containing alcohol above 0.5% by volume, were treated as compound alcoholic preparations falling within the exclusion in Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.; older explanatory notes and an earlier notification could not control the later exemption entry. The exemption was therefore unavailable for the beverage-use goods, and duty was sustained. For the remaining flavour compounds, the nature of use needed a categorical finding, so the matter was remanded for fresh determination. The consequential penalties, including those relating to the customs house agent, were also sent back for reconsideration with the revised liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>