<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1530 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457865</link>
    <description>Departmental appeal limitation was treated as a composite review-and-appeal framework, and the appeal was considered within time on the facts discussed. On classification, Martek DHA was analysed under Chapter 29 and held to remain a separate chemically defined organic compound, because impurities and stabilizers for preservation or transport did not alter its essential character. The article also notes that end use alone was insufficient to move the product to Heading 2106 as a food preparation, especially where it was imported as a multi-use chemical ingredient. The stated result was that the challenge failed on classification but succeeded on limitation, with the order sustained in part and set aside in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1530 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457865</link>
      <description>Departmental appeal limitation was treated as a composite review-and-appeal framework, and the appeal was considered within time on the facts discussed. On classification, Martek DHA was analysed under Chapter 29 and held to remain a separate chemically defined organic compound, because impurities and stabilizers for preservation or transport did not alter its essential character. The article also notes that end use alone was insufficient to move the product to Heading 2106 as a food preparation, especially where it was imported as a multi-use chemical ingredient. The stated result was that the challenge failed on classification but succeeded on limitation, with the order sustained in part and set aside in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>