<?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 (12) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80979</link>
    <description>A show cause notice confined to the normal six-month period was held valid where it alleged misdeclaration and rule contravention, and no case of fraud, collusion or suppression justified invoking the extended period. For exemption as a barrier cream under Notification No. 393/86-C.E., the product had to satisfy Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 33 by protecting skin against irritants; on the assessee&#039;s own materials, &quot;Oil of Olay&quot; was marketed as a beauty cream that softened and moisturised skin, not as a protective barrier. Chapter tariff description prevailed over dictionary meaning, and Drugs and Cosmetics licensing did not displace tariff classification, so exemption was denied and duty demand sustained, with only the penalty reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:40:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80979</link>
      <description>A show cause notice confined to the normal six-month period was held valid where it alleged misdeclaration and rule contravention, and no case of fraud, collusion or suppression justified invoking the extended period. For exemption as a barrier cream under Notification No. 393/86-C.E., the product had to satisfy Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 33 by protecting skin against irritants; on the assessee&#039;s own materials, &quot;Oil of Olay&quot; was marketed as a beauty cream that softened and moisturised skin, not as a protective barrier. Chapter tariff description prevailed over dictionary meaning, and Drugs and Cosmetics licensing did not displace tariff classification, so exemption was denied and duty demand sustained, with only the penalty reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>