<?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 (5) TMI 1612 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792410</link>
    <description>Mono potassium phosphate, fertiliser grade, was held classifiable under CTH 31056000 because Chapter 31 covers goods answering the fertiliser description by their intended agricultural use. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to reclassify the import under CTH 28352400 failed because the product was not shown to be a separate chemically defined compound outside the fertiliser entry, and the relied-upon customs circular was found inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal followed coordinate-Bench reasoning that mixtures or compounds falling within Chapter 31 remain classifiable as fertilisers, and rejected reclassification based only on general chemical composition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1612 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792410</link>
      <description>Mono potassium phosphate, fertiliser grade, was held classifiable under CTH 31056000 because Chapter 31 covers goods answering the fertiliser description by their intended agricultural use. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to reclassify the import under CTH 28352400 failed because the product was not shown to be a separate chemically defined compound outside the fertiliser entry, and the relied-upon customs circular was found inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal followed coordinate-Bench reasoning that mixtures or compounds falling within Chapter 31 remain classifiable as fertilisers, and rejected reclassification based only on general chemical composition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>