<?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 (12) TMI 1143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783603</link>
    <description>Dietary supplements were held to fall outside Chapter 30 because Chapter Note 1(a) excludes food and food supplements, save for nutritional preparations for intravenous administration; they were therefore classifiable under CETH 21069099. The claimed benefit of Notification No. 49/2003-CE was unavailable because the goods were not covered by the tariff entry relied on. The declared treatment of the goods as pharmaceutical products, despite their true character as dietary supplements, supported invocation of the extended limitation period and sustained penalty under section 11AC on the basis of intent to evade duty. Duty, interest and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783603</link>
      <description>Dietary supplements were held to fall outside Chapter 30 because Chapter Note 1(a) excludes food and food supplements, save for nutritional preparations for intravenous administration; they were therefore classifiable under CETH 21069099. The claimed benefit of Notification No. 49/2003-CE was unavailable because the goods were not covered by the tariff entry relied on. The declared treatment of the goods as pharmaceutical products, despite their true character as dietary supplements, supported invocation of the extended limitation period and sustained penalty under section 11AC on the basis of intent to evade duty. Duty, interest and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>