<?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>1989 (2) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80019</link>
    <description>Liquid paraffin imported as such was held to fall under the specific entry for liquid paraffin in Notification No. 115/86-Cus., not the broader lubricating oil entry, because a specific tariff description prevails and end use was not required where the product was expressly named. For the alternative excise issue, purified pharmacopeal-grade liquid paraffin IP/BP/USP was treated as classifiable as a medicament under Heading 3003.20, since it was suitable for medicinal use and no material showed it to be a mixed product or patent or proprietary medicine. The result was that the customs classification was sustained while the medicinal classification claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80019</link>
      <description>Liquid paraffin imported as such was held to fall under the specific entry for liquid paraffin in Notification No. 115/86-Cus., not the broader lubricating oil entry, because a specific tariff description prevails and end use was not required where the product was expressly named. For the alternative excise issue, purified pharmacopeal-grade liquid paraffin IP/BP/USP was treated as classifiable as a medicament under Heading 3003.20, since it was suitable for medicinal use and no material showed it to be a mixed product or patent or proprietary medicine. The result was that the customs classification was sustained while the medicinal classification claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>