<?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>2011 (1) TMI 731 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206518</link>
    <description>Products marketed as Domex variants were classified as cleaning preparations under Chapter 34 because their essential function was cleaning, while germ-killing activity was only subsidiary; the presence of sodium hypochlorite and disinfectant properties did not make Chapter 38 applicable. The analysis applied the essential character and dominant function test, read with HSN notes, to distinguish disinfectant preparations from cleaning preparations. Penalties on the assessee and its partner were set aside because the dispute turned on tariff interpretation and the record did not establish misdeclaration or suppression sufficient to sustain penal action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 00:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 731 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206518</link>
      <description>Products marketed as Domex variants were classified as cleaning preparations under Chapter 34 because their essential function was cleaning, while germ-killing activity was only subsidiary; the presence of sodium hypochlorite and disinfectant properties did not make Chapter 38 applicable. The analysis applied the essential character and dominant function test, read with HSN notes, to distinguish disinfectant preparations from cleaning preparations. Penalties on the assessee and its partner were set aside because the dispute turned on tariff interpretation and the record did not establish misdeclaration or suppression sufficient to sustain penal action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>