<?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 (2) TMI 467 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111142</link>
    <description>Classification of &quot;Parachute Dandruff Solution Coconut Hair Oil&quot; was determined by its essential character as a perfumed hair oil falling under Chapter 33. Note 1(d) to Chapter 30 excluded preparations classifiable under Chapter 33 even if they had therapeutic or prophylactic features, and Note 6 to Chapter 33 specifically covered perfumed hair oils under Heading 3305. The product&#039;s anti-dandruff effect arose only from an incidental ingredient and did not alter its commercial identity. The specific tariff description was preferred over the residuary entry, so sub-heading 3305.10 applied and the contrary demand for duty, interest, and penalties based on classification under 3305.99 could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:44:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 467 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111142</link>
      <description>Classification of &quot;Parachute Dandruff Solution Coconut Hair Oil&quot; was determined by its essential character as a perfumed hair oil falling under Chapter 33. Note 1(d) to Chapter 30 excluded preparations classifiable under Chapter 33 even if they had therapeutic or prophylactic features, and Note 6 to Chapter 33 specifically covered perfumed hair oils under Heading 3305. The product&#039;s anti-dandruff effect arose only from an incidental ingredient and did not alter its commercial identity. The specific tariff description was preferred over the residuary entry, so sub-heading 3305.10 applied and the contrary demand for duty, interest, and penalties based on classification under 3305.99 could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>