<?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>2005 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53818</link>
    <description>Corn Gluten Meal was held classifiable under Heading 23.01 as residue and waste from the food industry, not under Heading 35.04 as peptones or other protein substances. The product arose as a residual material in maize starch manufacture after separation of fibre, starch and gluten, and its trade use as cattle and poultry feed supported Chapter 23 classification. Mere protein content was insufficient to shift it to Heading 35.04, since there was no evidence of hydrolysis or enzymatic treatment associated with peptones. The Revenue failed to show that the product was not residue or waste of the food industry, so classification under Heading 23.01 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53818</link>
      <description>Corn Gluten Meal was held classifiable under Heading 23.01 as residue and waste from the food industry, not under Heading 35.04 as peptones or other protein substances. The product arose as a residual material in maize starch manufacture after separation of fibre, starch and gluten, and its trade use as cattle and poultry feed supported Chapter 23 classification. Mere protein content was insufficient to shift it to Heading 35.04, since there was no evidence of hydrolysis or enzymatic treatment associated with peptones. The Revenue failed to show that the product was not residue or waste of the food industry, so classification under Heading 23.01 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>