https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43239 Package tea was treated as a separate tariff category for excise purposes, and the legislature was held competent to prescribe different duty rates for distinct tea classifications even where blending, sorting, and packing were not treated as manufacture. The classification between loose tea, package tea, and package tea in different container sizes was upheld because it served a fiscal objective and reflected real market distinctions. In taxation, a classification is valid when it is intelligible and has a rational nexus with the object of the levy. The excise classification and levy on package tea were therefore sustained, and the constitutional challenge failed. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43239 Package tea was treated as a separate tariff category for excise purposes, and the legislature was held competent to prescribe different duty rates for distinct tea classifications even where blending, sorting, and packing were not treated as manufacture. The classification between loose tea, package tea, and package tea in different container sizes was upheld because it served a fiscal objective and reflected real market distinctions. In taxation, a classification is valid when it is intelligible and has a rational nexus with the object of the levy. The excise classification and levy on package tea were therefore sustained, and the constitutional challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43239