<?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>2017 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347315</link>
    <description>For tariff entries applying only to goods put up in unit containers, the authority must examine whether the packaging meets the judicial meaning of a unit container, namely a container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity. Branding, wrappers, cartons or pouches used for serving food do not by themselves establish that requirement. Because the adjudicating authority did not consider the relevant interpretive authorities, the classification and excisability findings could not stand on the existing record. The question of unit-container classification was remitted for fresh reconsideration, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347315</link>
      <description>For tariff entries applying only to goods put up in unit containers, the authority must examine whether the packaging meets the judicial meaning of a unit container, namely a container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity. Branding, wrappers, cartons or pouches used for serving food do not by themselves establish that requirement. Because the adjudicating authority did not consider the relevant interpretive authorities, the classification and excisability findings could not stand on the existing record. The question of unit-container classification was remitted for fresh reconsideration, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>