<?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>1996 (3) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85979</link>
    <description>Goods marketed and used as a bathing powder for conditioning the body, hair and scalp were classifiable under Chapter 33 as a toilet preparation, because the container and literature indicated cosmetic use and the claim of Ayurvedic medicinal character was not supported by reliable evidence or recognized Ayurvedic texts. Exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. was unavailable because the markings on the container amounted to use of a brand name or trade name, attracting the notification&#039;s exclusion. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable, as the surrounding facts did not establish deliberate suppression or lack of bona fides sufficient to invoke it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:21:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85979</link>
      <description>Goods marketed and used as a bathing powder for conditioning the body, hair and scalp were classifiable under Chapter 33 as a toilet preparation, because the container and literature indicated cosmetic use and the claim of Ayurvedic medicinal character was not supported by reliable evidence or recognized Ayurvedic texts. Exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. was unavailable because the markings on the container amounted to use of a brand name or trade name, attracting the notification&#039;s exclusion. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable, as the surrounding facts did not establish deliberate suppression or lack of bona fides sufficient to invoke it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>