<?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>2001 (8) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97997</link>
    <description>Dant Manjan Lal was analysed for tariff classification under the new regime, with the common parlance test and the earlier Supreme Court ruling remaining relevant to its character as understood in trade. The product was treated as prima facie falling under Heading 33.06 for oral and dental hygiene preparations, because tooth powders are specifically covered there and the chapter note excludes Chapter 30. Classification under Heading 30.03 would first require the product to satisfy the chapter-note definition of a medicament, and that threshold could not be bypassed. The commentary also notes disagreement with a contrary regional bench view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:28:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 490 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97997</link>
      <description>Dant Manjan Lal was analysed for tariff classification under the new regime, with the common parlance test and the earlier Supreme Court ruling remaining relevant to its character as understood in trade. The product was treated as prima facie falling under Heading 33.06 for oral and dental hygiene preparations, because tooth powders are specifically covered there and the chapter note excludes Chapter 30. Classification under Heading 30.03 would first require the product to satisfy the chapter-note definition of a medicament, and that threshold could not be bypassed. The commentary also notes disagreement with a contrary regional bench view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>