<?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>1998 (5) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89042</link>
    <description>Compound vegetable extracts used in Ayurvedic medicine may, on a prima facie view, fall under Chapter 30 rather than Chapter 13 where they have therapeutic or prophylactic value and have not undergone fermentation or other preservative processes. The tariff scheme, HSN Explanatory Notes, and the cited departmental circular support the view that such mixed or compounded extracts are not treated as Chapter 13 goods, and that Note 1(d) excludes medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30. In the interim relief context, the admitted duty on simple single-plant extracts was to be deposited, while pre-deposit and recovery were waived for the disputed compound-extract duty and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:37:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89042</link>
      <description>Compound vegetable extracts used in Ayurvedic medicine may, on a prima facie view, fall under Chapter 30 rather than Chapter 13 where they have therapeutic or prophylactic value and have not undergone fermentation or other preservative processes. The tariff scheme, HSN Explanatory Notes, and the cited departmental circular support the view that such mixed or compounded extracts are not treated as Chapter 13 goods, and that Note 1(d) excludes medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30. In the interim relief context, the admitted duty on simple single-plant extracts was to be deposited, while pre-deposit and recovery were waived for the disputed compound-extract duty and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>