<?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>2025 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765600</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Mass Weight Gainer food supplements are correctly classifiable under CTH 21061000 (Protein Concentrates) rather than CTH 21069099, applying General Rule of Interpretation 3(a) favoring specific over general descriptions. The product, primarily marketed as protein concentrate for muscle building, falls under the specific protein concentrate category. The Tribunal distinguished this from illness-recovery products classified under CTH 21069099. Additionally, extended limitation period under Section 28(4) could not be invoked as the department failed to establish collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, given all relevant documents were available during assessment. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765600</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Mass Weight Gainer food supplements are correctly classifiable under CTH 21061000 (Protein Concentrates) rather than CTH 21069099, applying General Rule of Interpretation 3(a) favoring specific over general descriptions. The product, primarily marketed as protein concentrate for muscle building, falls under the specific protein concentrate category. The Tribunal distinguished this from illness-recovery products classified under CTH 21069099. Additionally, extended limitation period under Section 28(4) could not be invoked as the department failed to establish collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, given all relevant documents were available during assessment. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>