https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216794 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their product should be classified under CETH 2503 as a fertilizer with nil duty rate, rather than under CETH 3824 as contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the appellant's process did not amount to manufacture and that the addition of inert materials did not change the classification of sulfur. Emphasizing the importance of chapter notes, previous tribunal decisions, and Supreme Court guidance, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216794 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their product should be classified under CETH 2503 as a fertilizer with nil duty rate, rather than under CETH 3824 as contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the appellant's process did not amount to manufacture and that the addition of inert materials did not change the classification of sulfur. Emphasizing the importance of chapter notes, previous tribunal decisions, and Supreme Court guidance, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216794