<?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>2009 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76514</link>
    <description>Medicines samples drawn during manufacture before the RG-I stage for quality control and batch testing were not treated as excisable goods, because they were taken only to verify whether the batch met required standards and could be marketed. Samples used solely for analysis before a batch was declared fit for sale were not regarded as fully finished goods cleared after manufacture. On that basis, the Tribunal held that such samples were not liable to central excise duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76514</link>
      <description>Medicines samples drawn during manufacture before the RG-I stage for quality control and batch testing were not treated as excisable goods, because they were taken only to verify whether the batch met required standards and could be marketed. Samples used solely for analysis before a batch was declared fit for sale were not regarded as fully finished goods cleared after manufacture. On that basis, the Tribunal held that such samples were not liable to central excise duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>