<?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 (10) TMI 1839 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266564</link>
    <description>Processes such as mixing, filtering, packing and branding can amount to manufacture when they create commercially identifiable products distinct from the inputs; on that basis, Gulabari and Keora Water were held to fall under the specific tariff entries for Rose Water and Keora Water rather than the generic heading for aqueous solutions of essential oils. For Shilajit Capsules, the record did not establish manufacture in accordance with an authoritative Ayurvedic text, so the product was treated as patent and proprietary Ayurvedic medicine rather than a classical Ayurvedic preparation. Applying these classifications, the denial of exemption and the demand order were not sustainable, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1839 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266564</link>
      <description>Processes such as mixing, filtering, packing and branding can amount to manufacture when they create commercially identifiable products distinct from the inputs; on that basis, Gulabari and Keora Water were held to fall under the specific tariff entries for Rose Water and Keora Water rather than the generic heading for aqueous solutions of essential oils. For Shilajit Capsules, the record did not establish manufacture in accordance with an authoritative Ayurvedic text, so the product was treated as patent and proprietary Ayurvedic medicine rather than a classical Ayurvedic preparation. Applying these classifications, the denial of exemption and the demand order were not sustainable, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>