https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782262 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the exporter's appeal, setting aside denial of MEIS benefits and confiscation of goods. The Tribunal held that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to substitute a different ITC(HS) code by relying on tariff item 2530 9099, as the applied code 6815 9990 was not shown to be legally inappropriate under the Customs Act, 1962 or Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since the goods were admittedly "zeolite" and the SCN did not properly address the exporter's explanation about further processing and shaping into articles, the rejection of the declared classification and consequent disallowance of MEIS benefits were found unsustainable. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782262 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the exporter's appeal, setting aside denial of MEIS benefits and confiscation of goods. The Tribunal held that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to substitute a different ITC(HS) code by relying on tariff item 2530 9099, as the applied code 6815 9990 was not shown to be legally inappropriate under the Customs Act, 1962 or Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since the goods were admittedly "zeolite" and the SCN did not properly address the exporter's explanation about further processing and shaping into articles, the rejection of the declared classification and consequent disallowance of MEIS benefits were found unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782262