<?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>Mixed-cereal products properly classified under CETH 2106; reclassification to 1901 rejected and Rule 25 penalty set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93673</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted &quot;preparations of flours&quot; derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Mixed-cereal products properly classified under CETH 2106; reclassification to 1901 rejected and Rule 25 penalty set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93673</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted &quot;preparations of flours&quot; derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>