<?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>2016 (2) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272079</link>
    <description>The beverage-in-bag product, already classified under Tariff item 2106 90 50 in the First Schedule, could not be reclassified for special excise duty under Tariff item 2106 90 19 in the Second Schedule merely on the basis of a Board clarification. Notes 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule apply the First Schedule&#039;s interpretative rules, section notes, chapter notes and supplementary notes, and Supplementary Note 4 of Chapter 21 covers preparations for lemonades or other beverages intended for use in making aerated water. As the product was a compound preparation for non-alcoholic beverages, the levy of special excise duty was held not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272079</link>
      <description>The beverage-in-bag product, already classified under Tariff item 2106 90 50 in the First Schedule, could not be reclassified for special excise duty under Tariff item 2106 90 19 in the Second Schedule merely on the basis of a Board clarification. Notes 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule apply the First Schedule&#039;s interpretative rules, section notes, chapter notes and supplementary notes, and Supplementary Note 4 of Chapter 21 covers preparations for lemonades or other beverages intended for use in making aerated water. As the product was a compound preparation for non-alcoholic beverages, the levy of special excise duty was held not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>