<?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>2003 (1) TMI 408 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107194</link>
    <description>Products claimed as Ayurvedic medicaments were classified as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05 because Chapter 30 requires real therapeutic or prophylactic use, and the mere presence of ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic texts was insufficient. The record showed cosmetic presentation and marketing, while evidence of medicinal use was inadequate. On limitation, the assessee&#039;s disclosure of manufacture and product details negated suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period under the excise law could not be invoked and penalty was not sustainable. Classification was therefore upheld, but the demand for the extended period and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:23:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 408 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107194</link>
      <description>Products claimed as Ayurvedic medicaments were classified as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05 because Chapter 30 requires real therapeutic or prophylactic use, and the mere presence of ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic texts was insufficient. The record showed cosmetic presentation and marketing, while evidence of medicinal use was inadequate. On limitation, the assessee&#039;s disclosure of manufacture and product details negated suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period under the excise law could not be invoked and penalty was not sustainable. Classification was therefore upheld, but the demand for the extended period and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>