<?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 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770400</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding classification of imported fruit pulp/juice products. The tribunal held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (juice of single citrus fruit) rather than under residuary item 2106 90 19 as soft drink concentrate. Classification is determined by product composition and preparation methodology, not end usage. The tribunal found no suppression of facts despite misclassification, as there was no revenue loss and no incorrect description in bills of entry. Since products contained no citric acid, essential oils, or synthetic sweetening agents, they did not qualify under CTH 2106. Differential IGST demand, penalties on both appellants, and confiscation order were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 08:37:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770400</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding classification of imported fruit pulp/juice products. The tribunal held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (juice of single citrus fruit) rather than under residuary item 2106 90 19 as soft drink concentrate. Classification is determined by product composition and preparation methodology, not end usage. The tribunal found no suppression of facts despite misclassification, as there was no revenue loss and no incorrect description in bills of entry. Since products contained no citric acid, essential oils, or synthetic sweetening agents, they did not qualify under CTH 2106. Differential IGST demand, penalties on both appellants, and confiscation order were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>