<?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 (10) TMI 630 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779834</link>
    <description>Levocarnitine and Levocarnitine L-Tartrate were treated as separate chemically defined organic compounds under Chapter 29, not as food preparations under the residuary tariff entry. The article states that, when Revenue seeks to displace an importer&#039;s declared classification, it bears the burden of proving the proposed reclassification with evidence. Here, the CRCL report did not establish that the goods were food preparations; it only showed limited use as additives. The specific technical tariff entry and the HSN-based chapter structure were held to prevail over common parlance and the residuary entry, so classification under CTH 29239000 was upheld and the proposed reclassification under CTH 21069099 failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 630 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779834</link>
      <description>Levocarnitine and Levocarnitine L-Tartrate were treated as separate chemically defined organic compounds under Chapter 29, not as food preparations under the residuary tariff entry. The article states that, when Revenue seeks to displace an importer&#039;s declared classification, it bears the burden of proving the proposed reclassification with evidence. Here, the CRCL report did not establish that the goods were food preparations; it only showed limited use as additives. The specific technical tariff entry and the HSN-based chapter structure were held to prevail over common parlance and the residuary entry, so classification under CTH 29239000 was upheld and the proposed reclassification under CTH 21069099 failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>