<?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>2015 (9) TMI 982 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264314</link>
    <description>Salted potato chips sold in retail packs were treated as classifiable under Heading 2005 20 00 as prepared or preserved potatoes rather than under the residuary food-preparation heading, relying on the substance of Chapter 20, prior Board clarification, and High Court guidance on processed vegetables. Even on the alternative classification under Heading 2106 90 99, the goods were described as namkeen and remained covered by the exemption for ready-to-consume namkeens under Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. Packaging for retail sale did not by itself defeat the exemption. On that basis, the duty demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 982 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264314</link>
      <description>Salted potato chips sold in retail packs were treated as classifiable under Heading 2005 20 00 as prepared or preserved potatoes rather than under the residuary food-preparation heading, relying on the substance of Chapter 20, prior Board clarification, and High Court guidance on processed vegetables. Even on the alternative classification under Heading 2106 90 99, the goods were described as namkeen and remained covered by the exemption for ready-to-consume namkeens under Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. Packaging for retail sale did not by itself defeat the exemption. On that basis, the duty demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>