<?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>2004 (10) TMI 191 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53487</link>
    <description>Processing guar dal powder with additives and blending it into a graded industrial product was treated as manufacture because the operation changed the commodity&#039;s commercial identity and marketability, so the resultant product ceased to remain guar dal. However, for tariff purposes, guar gum powder was held to fall under Chapter 11 as a product of the milling industry rather than Chapter 13 as a gum, with the Tribunal distinguishing the chapter scheme and declining to treat contrary views as controlling. On that classification, the goods attracted nil duty, and the demand, confiscation and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee, notwithstanding the adverse finding on manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:33:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 191 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53487</link>
      <description>Processing guar dal powder with additives and blending it into a graded industrial product was treated as manufacture because the operation changed the commodity&#039;s commercial identity and marketability, so the resultant product ceased to remain guar dal. However, for tariff purposes, guar gum powder was held to fall under Chapter 11 as a product of the milling industry rather than Chapter 13 as a gum, with the Tribunal distinguishing the chapter scheme and declining to treat contrary views as controlling. On that classification, the goods attracted nil duty, and the demand, confiscation and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee, notwithstanding the adverse finding on manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>