<?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>2004 (1) TMI 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110830</link>
    <description>Multivitamin formulations combined with other substances were treated as medicaments under Heading 3003.10 rather than vitamin preparations under Heading 29.36. The reasoning was that the products had therapeutic or prophylactic value in preventing or alleviating vitamin-deficiency conditions, and the lower authorities had not given adequate reasons or relied on expert opinion to deny that character. Prior Tribunal decisions on mixtures of vitamins with excipients supported classification under Heading 3003, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary authorities were distinguished on facts because they did not concern the same type of formulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:47:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110830</link>
      <description>Multivitamin formulations combined with other substances were treated as medicaments under Heading 3003.10 rather than vitamin preparations under Heading 29.36. The reasoning was that the products had therapeutic or prophylactic value in preventing or alleviating vitamin-deficiency conditions, and the lower authorities had not given adequate reasons or relied on expert opinion to deny that character. Prior Tribunal decisions on mixtures of vitamins with excipients supported classification under Heading 3003, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary authorities were distinguished on facts because they did not concern the same type of formulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>