<?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>2018 (3) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356862</link>
    <description>EDTA FE was held classifiable as a micronutrient fertilizer under Heading 3105 90 90 after the product was examined against the test report, the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31. The Tribunal accepted the lower authorities&#039; finding that micronutrient fertilizers may contain elements such as zinc, iron, manganese and copper for plant growth, and that the presence of nitrogen did not by itself disqualify the goods from fertilizer classification. As the Revenue produced no supporting test report or expert opinion to displace those concurrent findings, and a prior decision on a similar product supported the same view, the classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356862</link>
      <description>EDTA FE was held classifiable as a micronutrient fertilizer under Heading 3105 90 90 after the product was examined against the test report, the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31. The Tribunal accepted the lower authorities&#039; finding that micronutrient fertilizers may contain elements such as zinc, iron, manganese and copper for plant growth, and that the presence of nitrogen did not by itself disqualify the goods from fertilizer classification. As the Revenue produced no supporting test report or expert opinion to displace those concurrent findings, and a prior decision on a similar product supported the same view, the classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>