<?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>Scented tobacco subjected only to sieving, application of quimam and perfume, and packing remains classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco where it is not transformed into a consumer-ready chewing product or commercially understood as chewing tobacco. Curing, casing, flavouring or moistening of tobacco leaves does not by itself create manufactured chewing tobacco. As the goods attracted a nil duty rate under the unmanufactured tobacco heading, their clearances could not be included for SSI turnover by clubbing group-unit clearances. Consequently, denial of SSI exemption, duty demands, penalties, and allegations of non-registration or clandestine removal were unsustainable.</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>Scented tobacco subjected only to sieving, application of quimam and perfume, and packing remains classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco where it is not transformed into a consumer-ready chewing product or commercially understood as chewing tobacco. Curing, casing, flavouring or moistening of tobacco leaves does not by itself create manufactured chewing tobacco. As the goods attracted a nil duty rate under the unmanufactured tobacco heading, their clearances could not be included for SSI turnover by clubbing group-unit clearances. Consequently, denial of SSI exemption, duty demands, penalties, and allegations of non-registration or clandestine removal were unsustainable.</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>