<?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 (2) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107274</link>
    <description>Use of the letters &quot;ASA&quot; on medicament packaging was examined for Chapter 30 classification, with the central issue being whether the letters operated only as an abbreviation or as a brand name for patent or proprietary medicaments. The merits challenge was regarded as arguable, but the assessee made a strong prima facie showing that the extended period of limitation was unsustainable because the classification list and label had already disclosed the packaging particulars to the department. On that basis, partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted, with a deposit required only toward the demand within the normal period and the balance duty and penalties stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:04:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107274</link>
      <description>Use of the letters &quot;ASA&quot; on medicament packaging was examined for Chapter 30 classification, with the central issue being whether the letters operated only as an abbreviation or as a brand name for patent or proprietary medicaments. The merits challenge was regarded as arguable, but the assessee made a strong prima facie showing that the extended period of limitation was unsustainable because the classification list and label had already disclosed the packaging particulars to the department. On that basis, partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted, with a deposit required only toward the demand within the normal period and the balance duty and penalties stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>