<?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 (7) TMI 486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382790</link>
    <description>Classification under the excise tariff turned on the product&#039;s essential character and the actual role of lemon juice in its composition. A drink falls under Tariff Item 22021020 only when it is essentially water or aerated water with lime or lemon as flavouring; where lemon juice forms the basis of the drink rather than a mere flavouring agent, it is classifiable under Tariff Item 22029029 as a fruit juice based drink. Applying these principles and the common parlance and tariff interpretation tests, the product was placed in Tariff Item 22029029. On penalty, the absence of mala fide intent to evade duty and the prior departmental notices meant penalty on the company and its Plant Accountant was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382790</link>
      <description>Classification under the excise tariff turned on the product&#039;s essential character and the actual role of lemon juice in its composition. A drink falls under Tariff Item 22021020 only when it is essentially water or aerated water with lime or lemon as flavouring; where lemon juice forms the basis of the drink rather than a mere flavouring agent, it is classifiable under Tariff Item 22029029 as a fruit juice based drink. Applying these principles and the common parlance and tariff interpretation tests, the product was placed in Tariff Item 22029029. On penalty, the absence of mala fide intent to evade duty and the prior departmental notices meant penalty on the company and its Plant Accountant was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>