<?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>2008 (6) TMI 582 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174793</link>
    <description>Classification of refined coconut oil in retail packs turns on the heading description read with the relevant section and chapter notes. Under the tariff aligned with the HSN, coconut oil continued to fall within Heading 1513, while Heading 3305 applied only where the product was suitable for use as hair oil and was specially presented or packed for that purpose. The packing, label and presentation of the goods were found insufficient to convert identifiable coconut oil into a preparation for hair use. Board circulars and earlier Tribunal interpretation supported classification as coconut oil, so the revised classification and resulting duty demand were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:04:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 582 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174793</link>
      <description>Classification of refined coconut oil in retail packs turns on the heading description read with the relevant section and chapter notes. Under the tariff aligned with the HSN, coconut oil continued to fall within Heading 1513, while Heading 3305 applied only where the product was suitable for use as hair oil and was specially presented or packed for that purpose. The packing, label and presentation of the goods were found insufficient to convert identifiable coconut oil into a preparation for hair use. Board circulars and earlier Tribunal interpretation supported classification as coconut oil, so the revised classification and resulting duty demand were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>