<?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>2000 (6) TMI 70 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49842</link>
    <description>Tobacco leaves beaten, crushed and sieved without any added foreign ingredients were treated as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 24.01, because the processing did not change the product into manufactured chewing tobacco. The HSN notes, sample reports showing only broken tobacco bits free from lime and molasses, and consistent Tribunal decisions supported that classification. Earlier adverse classification for a different period did not control the later period, and the departmental circular and trade notice also favoured Heading 24.01. On that basis, duty demands founded on sub-heading 2404.41 were held unsustainable and the classification in favour of the assessees was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:37:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 70 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49842</link>
      <description>Tobacco leaves beaten, crushed and sieved without any added foreign ingredients were treated as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 24.01, because the processing did not change the product into manufactured chewing tobacco. The HSN notes, sample reports showing only broken tobacco bits free from lime and molasses, and consistent Tribunal decisions supported that classification. Earlier adverse classification for a different period did not control the later period, and the departmental circular and trade notice also favoured Heading 24.01. On that basis, duty demands founded on sub-heading 2404.41 were held unsustainable and the classification in favour of the assessees was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>