<?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>2007 (4) TMI 51 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1683</link>
    <description>A cereal preparation coated with a cocoa-containing food preparation was treated as classifiable under Heading 18.04 rather than Heading 19.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. The cocoa content was found at 15.7% on a defatted basis, exceeding the 6% limit in Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 19, and the challenge that only the HSN method could be used for testing was rejected because the Tariff note was not fully aligned with the HSN. Technical literature and expert opinion supported the department&#039;s method, and no contrary expert evidence rebutted the finding. The alternative basis that the product was coated with cocoa preparation also supported exclusion from Heading 19.04.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 51 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1683</link>
      <description>A cereal preparation coated with a cocoa-containing food preparation was treated as classifiable under Heading 18.04 rather than Heading 19.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. The cocoa content was found at 15.7% on a defatted basis, exceeding the 6% limit in Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 19, and the challenge that only the HSN method could be used for testing was rejected because the Tariff note was not fully aligned with the HSN. Technical literature and expert opinion supported the department&#039;s method, and no contrary expert evidence rebutted the finding. The alternative basis that the product was coated with cocoa preparation also supported exclusion from Heading 19.04.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>