<?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>1995 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84387</link>
    <description>Pharma yeast sold as a raw material for manufacture of medicaments, and not put up as a medicament itself, was treated as inactive or dry yeast under Tariff Heading 2102.10 rather than as a medicament under Tariff Heading 3003.30. The reasoning followed an earlier classification view in the same assessee&#039;s case and turned on the product&#039;s presentation and use, not on any therapeutic claim. The appeal therefore failed on classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84387</link>
      <description>Pharma yeast sold as a raw material for manufacture of medicaments, and not put up as a medicament itself, was treated as inactive or dry yeast under Tariff Heading 2102.10 rather than as a medicament under Tariff Heading 3003.30. The reasoning followed an earlier classification view in the same assessee&#039;s case and turned on the product&#039;s presentation and use, not on any therapeutic claim. The appeal therefore failed on classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>