<?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>2006 (4) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385</link>
    <description>Denatured salt consisting principally of sodium chloride was treated as classifiable under Heading 25.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 because that heading expressly covers salt, including denatured salt, and the HSN notes support inclusion of sodium chloride remaining after chemical processing. Classification had to be determined by the wording of the heading and relative notes, with the specific heading prevailing over a residuary heading. Heading 38.23 could apply only if the goods were not otherwise specified or included, so the Revenue could not rely on it. The burden of justifying departure from the assessee&#039;s claimed classification lay on the Revenue, and that burden was not discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 14:20:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385</link>
      <description>Denatured salt consisting principally of sodium chloride was treated as classifiable under Heading 25.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 because that heading expressly covers salt, including denatured salt, and the HSN notes support inclusion of sodium chloride remaining after chemical processing. Classification had to be determined by the wording of the heading and relative notes, with the specific heading prevailing over a residuary heading. Heading 38.23 could apply only if the goods were not otherwise specified or included, so the Revenue could not rely on it. The burden of justifying departure from the assessee&#039;s claimed classification lay on the Revenue, and that burden was not discharged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>