<?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>2008 (3) TMI 145 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30219</link>
    <description>De-mineralised water cleared from the factory was held classifiable as distilled water or water of similar purity under Heading 2851.19, because the treatment process produced extremely pure water used for industrial consumption and altered its character and application. Although the same product used captively within the factory was recognised under Heading 2851.11 with nil duty, removal from the factory attracted duty under the applicable tariff entry. The assessee failed to show that the goods fell outside the tariff description or to displace the view taken in its own earlier case. Classification under Heading 2851.19 was upheld and the demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 145 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30219</link>
      <description>De-mineralised water cleared from the factory was held classifiable as distilled water or water of similar purity under Heading 2851.19, because the treatment process produced extremely pure water used for industrial consumption and altered its character and application. Although the same product used captively within the factory was recognised under Heading 2851.11 with nil duty, removal from the factory attracted duty under the applicable tariff entry. The assessee failed to show that the goods fell outside the tariff description or to displace the view taken in its own earlier case. Classification under Heading 2851.19 was upheld and the demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>