<?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>1990 (7) TMI 222 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80710</link>
    <description>An unmixed liver extract supplied in bulk to pharmaceutical manufacturers was held not to satisfy the Chapter 30 requirements for a medicament. Classification under Heading 30.03 and Sub-heading 3003.20 depended on therapeutic or prophylactic use and presentation in measured doses or in retail, hospital, or equivalent packings, which the product lacked. Labels showing manufacture-only supply and approval by the Drugs Controller did not alter tariff classification, which had to be determined from the heading and chapter notes. The product was therefore classifiable under Heading 30.01, the Department&#039;s view was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s cross-objections failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 222 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80710</link>
      <description>An unmixed liver extract supplied in bulk to pharmaceutical manufacturers was held not to satisfy the Chapter 30 requirements for a medicament. Classification under Heading 30.03 and Sub-heading 3003.20 depended on therapeutic or prophylactic use and presentation in measured doses or in retail, hospital, or equivalent packings, which the product lacked. Labels showing manufacture-only supply and approval by the Drugs Controller did not alter tariff classification, which had to be determined from the heading and chapter notes. The product was therefore classifiable under Heading 30.01, the Department&#039;s view was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s cross-objections failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>