https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269361 Classification of excisable goods depended on whether the manufacturing process converted them into processed or prepared food products under Chapter 16, or left them as fish and marine products under Chapter 3. Expert reports supported the view that the goods had not undergone a process sufficient to remove them from Chapter 3, and the departmental evidence was weakened because the experts were not cross-examined. On that basis, the Chapter 3 classification was upheld and the Chapter 16 claim rejected. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269361 Classification of excisable goods depended on whether the manufacturing process converted them into processed or prepared food products under Chapter 16, or left them as fish and marine products under Chapter 3. Expert reports supported the view that the goods had not undergone a process sufficient to remove them from Chapter 3, and the departmental evidence was weakened because the experts were not cross-examined. On that basis, the Chapter 3 classification was upheld and the Chapter 16 claim rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269361