<?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 (7) TMI 800 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100578</link>
    <description>Classification of the product &quot;Juri-Tap&quot; turned on whether the added ingredients, magnesium sulphate and ferrous sulphate, displaced the therapeutic or prophylactic character of quinine sulphate, the principal active ingredient. The Tribunal held that the ancillary ingredients did not alter that medicinal character, and the product remained classifiable under sub-heading 3003.11 rather than 3003.90. The view was reinforced by the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same product, where the same classification had already been accepted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge rejected. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed on the classification dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:33:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 800 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100578</link>
      <description>Classification of the product &quot;Juri-Tap&quot; turned on whether the added ingredients, magnesium sulphate and ferrous sulphate, displaced the therapeutic or prophylactic character of quinine sulphate, the principal active ingredient. The Tribunal held that the ancillary ingredients did not alter that medicinal character, and the product remained classifiable under sub-heading 3003.11 rather than 3003.90. The view was reinforced by the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same product, where the same classification had already been accepted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge rejected. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed on the classification dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>