<?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 (12) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90039</link>
    <description>A pharmaceutical preparation may still qualify as a single-ingredient formulation for exemption where a pharmaceutical aid is used only as a therapeutically inert vehicle or isotonic medium and does not affect the drug&#039;s therapeutic or prophylactic activity. On that basis, the products were treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 29/88-C.E. The text also states that embossed manufacturer identification on the bottles amounted only to a house mark and did not create a brand name or proprietary connection, so the products were not patent or proprietary medicaments under Chapter 30. As the duty demand failed on merits, penalty was not sustainable and limitation did not require separate adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:39:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90039</link>
      <description>A pharmaceutical preparation may still qualify as a single-ingredient formulation for exemption where a pharmaceutical aid is used only as a therapeutically inert vehicle or isotonic medium and does not affect the drug&#039;s therapeutic or prophylactic activity. On that basis, the products were treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 29/88-C.E. The text also states that embossed manufacturer identification on the bottles amounted only to a house mark and did not create a brand name or proprietary connection, so the products were not patent or proprietary medicaments under Chapter 30. As the duty demand failed on merits, penalty was not sustainable and limitation did not require separate adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>