<?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 732 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206519</link>
    <description>A starch-based product made from maize or tapioca starch, solubilised, partially hydrolysed, and fortified with vitamins and minerals was treated as a food preparation based on starch under Heading 1901, rather than a preparation of other sugars under Heading 1702. The chemical examiner&#039;s finding that the sample was essentially starch with dextrin, vitamins and minerals supported that classification. On that basis, captive consumption of the product in infant food manufacturing also attracted exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., and the contrary departmental analogy with a different maltodextrose product was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 732 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206519</link>
      <description>A starch-based product made from maize or tapioca starch, solubilised, partially hydrolysed, and fortified with vitamins and minerals was treated as a food preparation based on starch under Heading 1901, rather than a preparation of other sugars under Heading 1702. The chemical examiner&#039;s finding that the sample was essentially starch with dextrin, vitamins and minerals supported that classification. On that basis, captive consumption of the product in infant food manufacturing also attracted exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., and the contrary departmental analogy with a different maltodextrose product was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>