<?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 (11) TMI 38 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1094</link>
    <description>Rasna Soft Drink Concentrate was examined for classification under the expression &quot;preparations in the nature of instant food mixes&quot; in Notification No. 5/98-C.E. The product&#039;s ingredients, consumer use after dilution, common parlance meaning, technical literature and other classifications were considered, and the breadth of the phrase &quot;in the nature of&quot; was treated as significant. The contrary reliance on Parle Exports was distinguished because the tariff structure, notification language and product characteristics differed. The product was held to fall within the exemption entry, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 38 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1094</link>
      <description>Rasna Soft Drink Concentrate was examined for classification under the expression &quot;preparations in the nature of instant food mixes&quot; in Notification No. 5/98-C.E. The product&#039;s ingredients, consumer use after dilution, common parlance meaning, technical literature and other classifications were considered, and the breadth of the phrase &quot;in the nature of&quot; was treated as significant. The contrary reliance on Parle Exports was distinguished because the tariff structure, notification language and product characteristics differed. The product was held to fall within the exemption entry, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>