<?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>1999 (1) TMI 104 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90251</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of Clohex and Stolin was the central issue in considering waiver of pre-deposit. The applicant claimed classification as patent or proprietary medicines under Heading 30.03, while the department treated the products as preparations for oral or dental hygiene under Heading 33.06. The order noted the products&#039; composition, possible pharmacopeial use, the absence of clear packing indications for cosmetic or toilet use in Clohex, and the need for closer examination of the second product. On that basis, full waiver was declined, a partial deposit was ordered, and recovery of the balance duty demand was stayed upon compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:30:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 104 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90251</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of Clohex and Stolin was the central issue in considering waiver of pre-deposit. The applicant claimed classification as patent or proprietary medicines under Heading 30.03, while the department treated the products as preparations for oral or dental hygiene under Heading 33.06. The order noted the products&#039; composition, possible pharmacopeial use, the absence of clear packing indications for cosmetic or toilet use in Clohex, and the need for closer examination of the second product. On that basis, full waiver was declined, a partial deposit was ordered, and recovery of the balance duty demand was stayed upon compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>