<?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 (8) TMI 537 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94632</link>
    <description>A product prepared in accordance with ayurvedic formulae remained classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicine under Tariff Heading 3003.30 because the added synthetic green colour had no therapeutic value and did not alter its essential character. The label, read as a whole, described the product as a medicine for several ailments, while references to cosmetic effects on hair were insufficient to displace its dominant medicinal character. Chapter Notes 1(d) of Chapter 30 and 2 of Chapter 33 did not exclude it from the Ayurvedic medicine entry, so classification under Tariff Heading 33.05 / Tariff Item 14F(2) was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 537 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94632</link>
      <description>A product prepared in accordance with ayurvedic formulae remained classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicine under Tariff Heading 3003.30 because the added synthetic green colour had no therapeutic value and did not alter its essential character. The label, read as a whole, described the product as a medicine for several ailments, while references to cosmetic effects on hair were insufficient to displace its dominant medicinal character. Chapter Notes 1(d) of Chapter 30 and 2 of Chapter 33 did not exclude it from the Ayurvedic medicine entry, so classification under Tariff Heading 33.05 / Tariff Item 14F(2) was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>