<?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>2019 (6) TMI 265 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381188</link>
    <description>Tobacco powder made only by drying, cutting, sieving, crushing and grinding tobacco leaves, without reliable proof of blending with katha, calcium oxide or flavouring agents, remained unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401 and not manufactured chewing tobacco under Chapter 24. The chemical report was found inconclusive and inconsistent, while an independent university report supported the unmanufactured character of the sample. Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were also held unsustainable because re-testing was not effectively available after the sample was not preserved, cross-examination was denied, and no corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance was produced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 265 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381188</link>
      <description>Tobacco powder made only by drying, cutting, sieving, crushing and grinding tobacco leaves, without reliable proof of blending with katha, calcium oxide or flavouring agents, remained unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401 and not manufactured chewing tobacco under Chapter 24. The chemical report was found inconclusive and inconsistent, while an independent university report supported the unmanufactured character of the sample. Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were also held unsustainable because re-testing was not effectively available after the sample was not preserved, cross-examination was denied, and no corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance was produced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>