<?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 (10) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88224</link>
    <description>Amrutanjan Pain Balm was held classifiable as an ayurvedic medicine under sub-heading 3003.30 because the same product, in relation to the same assessee, had already been classified that way by the Supreme Court. The earlier Tribunal view placing it under sub-heading 3003.10 had been reversed, and the binding Supreme Court ruling controlled the present classification dispute. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 26 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:42:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88224</link>
      <description>Amrutanjan Pain Balm was held classifiable as an ayurvedic medicine under sub-heading 3003.30 because the same product, in relation to the same assessee, had already been classified that way by the Supreme Court. The earlier Tribunal view placing it under sub-heading 3003.10 had been reversed, and the binding Supreme Court ruling controlled the present classification dispute. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>