<?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>2000 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93113</link>
    <description>Unmedicated adhesive plasters, plaster of paris bandages and adhesive tapes used as surgical dressings were treated as non-therapeutic products, so they did not fall within patent or proprietary medicines under Item 14E and were classifiable under the residuary Item 68. The analysis turned on the absence of therapeutic or curative properties; antiseptic, supportive or astringent qualities were not enough to change the classification. It was also noted that consistent departmental circulars and tariff clarifications supported the residuary classification, and excise authorities could not adopt a contrary stand. Consequential relief was stated to be subject to unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:37:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93113</link>
      <description>Unmedicated adhesive plasters, plaster of paris bandages and adhesive tapes used as surgical dressings were treated as non-therapeutic products, so they did not fall within patent or proprietary medicines under Item 14E and were classifiable under the residuary Item 68. The analysis turned on the absence of therapeutic or curative properties; antiseptic, supportive or astringent qualities were not enough to change the classification. It was also noted that consistent departmental circulars and tariff clarifications supported the residuary classification, and excise authorities could not adopt a contrary stand. Consequential relief was stated to be subject to unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>