<?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 (12) TMI 716 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105570</link>
    <description>Physician sample packs were found to be distinctively different from trade packs for purposes of Notification No. 48/77, because they were not printed with MRP, were marked in red ink as &quot;Physician Samples not to be sold,&quot; and were packed differently. The Revenue did not effectively rebut the finding of distinctive packing or show what additional differences were required under the notification. The exemption from duty was therefore correctly extended to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:41:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 716 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105570</link>
      <description>Physician sample packs were found to be distinctively different from trade packs for purposes of Notification No. 48/77, because they were not printed with MRP, were marked in red ink as &quot;Physician Samples not to be sold,&quot; and were packed differently. The Revenue did not effectively rebut the finding of distinctive packing or show what additional differences were required under the notification. The exemption from duty was therefore correctly extended to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>