<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790276</link>
    <description>Classification of processed tobacco turned on the manufacturing process and parity with an earlier accepted classification of the same product. Dried tobacco leaves were de-stemmed, cleaned, cured with jaggery-water, cut and packed for sale. Advance rulings on classification bind the applicant and concerned officer, but remain subject to limited writ review for jurisdictional error, illegality, breach of natural justice or perversity rather than appellate reconsideration. Where the product and process were identical to those previously considered, consistent treatment was required to prevent unequal tax consequences. The goods were classified under CETH 2401 20 90, and the contrary advance ruling and appellate order were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790276</link>
      <description>Classification of processed tobacco turned on the manufacturing process and parity with an earlier accepted classification of the same product. Dried tobacco leaves were de-stemmed, cleaned, cured with jaggery-water, cut and packed for sale. Advance rulings on classification bind the applicant and concerned officer, but remain subject to limited writ review for jurisdictional error, illegality, breach of natural justice or perversity rather than appellate reconsideration. Where the product and process were identical to those previously considered, consistent treatment was required to prevent unequal tax consequences. The goods were classified under CETH 2401 20 90, and the contrary advance ruling and appellate order were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>