<?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>2010 (10) TMI 188 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202872</link>
    <description>Goods described as a nutrition and natural health supplement, and supported by their composition and test report, were treated as a food supplement classifiable under Heading 2108.99 rather than Heading 1901.92. The product&#039;s label, ingredients and use were considered consistent with the appellate finding, so the classification was sustained. On the SSI exemption claim under Notification No. 8/2001, para 4 turned on factual ownership of the brand name during the relevant period. Because fresh evidence had a bearing on that question and entitlement had to be established by the assessee, the exemption issue was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 188 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202872</link>
      <description>Goods described as a nutrition and natural health supplement, and supported by their composition and test report, were treated as a food supplement classifiable under Heading 2108.99 rather than Heading 1901.92. The product&#039;s label, ingredients and use were considered consistent with the appellate finding, so the classification was sustained. On the SSI exemption claim under Notification No. 8/2001, para 4 turned on factual ownership of the brand name during the relevant period. Because fresh evidence had a bearing on that question and entitlement had to be established by the assessee, the exemption issue was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>