Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
