<?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 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111925</link>
    <description>Tablets and medicines remained classifiable under Heading 3003.10 because the package markings were not shown to be house marks and there was no finding that the additional words were impermissible or outside the pharmacopoeial description. Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 applied on that basis, and it does not impose any exclusion based on font size or package size. The contrary classification was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:15:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111925</link>
      <description>Tablets and medicines remained classifiable under Heading 3003.10 because the package markings were not shown to be house marks and there was no finding that the additional words were impermissible or outside the pharmacopoeial description. Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 applied on that basis, and it does not impose any exclusion based on font size or package size. The contrary classification was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>