<?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>2023 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437492</link>
    <description>Classification depended on the products&#039; essential character, composition and trade understanding. Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme contained seaweed extract and other nutrients, so they were treated as nutrient-bearing fertilizers under Chapter 31 rather than plant growth regulators under Chapter 38. The presence of micronutrients did not alter that essential character, and the department produced no contrary evidence to displace the appellant&#039;s classification claim. The earlier decision in the appellant&#039;s own case for the prior period reinforced the same view. On that basis, the products were held classifiable as fertilizers, and the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 May 2023 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437492</link>
      <description>Classification depended on the products&#039; essential character, composition and trade understanding. Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme contained seaweed extract and other nutrients, so they were treated as nutrient-bearing fertilizers under Chapter 31 rather than plant growth regulators under Chapter 38. The presence of micronutrients did not alter that essential character, and the department produced no contrary evidence to displace the appellant&#039;s classification claim. The earlier decision in the appellant&#039;s own case for the prior period reinforced the same view. On that basis, the products were held classifiable as fertilizers, and the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>