<?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>Edible grade exemption under Customs notification upheld; circulars cannot add an end-use condition not found in the notification.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100383</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that imported refined oils and candelilla wax qualified for exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs because approved laboratory reports showed the goods were of edible grade and there was no dispute on tariff classification. The notification required only that the goods fall under the specified headings and be refined edible grade; it did not impose any end-use requirement. The Tribunal also held that a CBEC circular could not add a condition not found in the notification, so the importer&#039;s declared use in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals could not defeat the exemption. The appellate order granting benefit under Serial Nos. 64 and 71 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Edible grade exemption under Customs notification upheld; circulars cannot add an end-use condition not found in the notification.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100383</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that imported refined oils and candelilla wax qualified for exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs because approved laboratory reports showed the goods were of edible grade and there was no dispute on tariff classification. The notification required only that the goods fall under the specified headings and be refined edible grade; it did not impose any end-use requirement. The Tribunal also held that a CBEC circular could not add a condition not found in the notification, so the importer&#039;s declared use in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals could not defeat the exemption. The appellate order granting benefit under Serial Nos. 64 and 71 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>