<?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>1997 (12) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87900</link>
    <description>Physician samples of patent and proprietary medicines were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/77-C.E. because the sample packing was not visibly and materially distinct from regular trade packing. The phials for samples and trade supplies were the same size, and minor differences in quantity or price markings were insufficient to satisfy the notification&#039;s requirement. Compliance with the additional conditions for free distribution to hospitals, nursing homes, or medical practitioners also had to be established, and mere reference in the classification list or routing through a sale promoter did not prove it. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:35:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87900</link>
      <description>Physician samples of patent and proprietary medicines were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/77-C.E. because the sample packing was not visibly and materially distinct from regular trade packing. The phials for samples and trade supplies were the same size, and minor differences in quantity or price markings were insufficient to satisfy the notification&#039;s requirement. Compliance with the additional conditions for free distribution to hospitals, nursing homes, or medical practitioners also had to be established, and mere reference in the classification list or routing through a sale promoter did not prove it. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>