<?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 (9) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54660</link>
    <description>Tobacco leaves that are only sieved, cased with quimam, flavoured and packed, without being transformed into a consumer-ready chewing product, remain unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401.10 rather than chewing tobacco or a preparation containing chewing tobacco under Heading 2404.40. On that classification, the goods are treated as attracting nil duty, so their clearances cannot be clubbed for SSI turnover purposes. The article states that once the goods were outside the dutiable heading, the basis for denying SSI exemption, raising duty demands, and imposing penalties and related liabilities fell away, and findings of non-registration and clandestine removal could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54660</link>
      <description>Tobacco leaves that are only sieved, cased with quimam, flavoured and packed, without being transformed into a consumer-ready chewing product, remain unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401.10 rather than chewing tobacco or a preparation containing chewing tobacco under Heading 2404.40. On that classification, the goods are treated as attracting nil duty, so their clearances cannot be clubbed for SSI turnover purposes. The article states that once the goods were outside the dutiable heading, the basis for denying SSI exemption, raising duty demands, and imposing penalties and related liabilities fell away, and findings of non-registration and clandestine removal could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>