<?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 (7) TMI 606 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109953</link>
    <description>Classification of a skin cream under the Central Excise Tariff turns on its main use and how it is presented in the market; therapeutic or prophylactic properties alone do not place it in Chapter 30 if the principal use is skin care and any medicinal effect is only subsidiary. Product literature, prescription evidence, duration of use and common perception are relevant to that inquiry. A provisional assessment under Rule 9B remains provisional for all purposes, so its provisional character is not confined to classification issues. The document notes that the classification question was remitted for fresh determination, along with consequential duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:55:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 606 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109953</link>
      <description>Classification of a skin cream under the Central Excise Tariff turns on its main use and how it is presented in the market; therapeutic or prophylactic properties alone do not place it in Chapter 30 if the principal use is skin care and any medicinal effect is only subsidiary. Product literature, prescription evidence, duration of use and common perception are relevant to that inquiry. A provisional assessment under Rule 9B remains provisional for all purposes, so its provisional character is not confined to classification issues. The document notes that the classification question was remitted for fresh determination, along with consequential duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>