<?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 (10) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89388</link>
    <description>A product described as a thinner was held classifiable under CET sub-heading 3304.00 as a preparation for use in manicure or pedicure, not under CET sub-heading 3814.00 as an organic solvent. The product&#039;s packing, retail presentation, label description, and admitted use for diluting thick or dried nail polish showed cosmetic-related use, and no technical material was produced to prove a wider industrial application. Note 5 to Chapter 33 and Note 2 to Chapter 33 supported classification under Chapter 33 for goods suitable for cosmetic or toilet use in specialised packing. The Revenue&#039;s classification was upheld, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:40:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89388</link>
      <description>A product described as a thinner was held classifiable under CET sub-heading 3304.00 as a preparation for use in manicure or pedicure, not under CET sub-heading 3814.00 as an organic solvent. The product&#039;s packing, retail presentation, label description, and admitted use for diluting thick or dried nail polish showed cosmetic-related use, and no technical material was produced to prove a wider industrial application. Note 5 to Chapter 33 and Note 2 to Chapter 33 supported classification under Chapter 33 for goods suitable for cosmetic or toilet use in specialised packing. The Revenue&#039;s classification was upheld, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>