<?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>1993 (10) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82832</link>
    <description>Selenium Sulphide Lotion USP marketed as Selsun was held classifiable as a preparation for use on hair under Chapter 33, not as a patent or proprietary medicine under Chapter 30, because the specific tariff entry for shampoos and cosmetic hair preparations prevailed and Chapter 30 excluded Chapter 33 products even if they had therapeutic value. The Tribunal also found that drug licence and medical literature were not conclusive for central excise classification. On confiscation and penalty, the goods were treated as not fully manufactured for excise purposes because required particulars such as batch number were not stamped on the bottles, so confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:13:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82832</link>
      <description>Selenium Sulphide Lotion USP marketed as Selsun was held classifiable as a preparation for use on hair under Chapter 33, not as a patent or proprietary medicine under Chapter 30, because the specific tariff entry for shampoos and cosmetic hair preparations prevailed and Chapter 30 excluded Chapter 33 products even if they had therapeutic value. The Tribunal also found that drug licence and medical literature were not conclusive for central excise classification. On confiscation and penalty, the goods were treated as not fully manufactured for excise purposes because required particulars such as batch number were not stamped on the bottles, so confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>