<?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>2005 (5) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115382</link>
    <description>Physician&#039;s samples of medicines qualified for exemption where the notification required the words &quot;physician&#039;s sample, not to be sold&quot; to be clearly and conspicuously marked on the label. The condition was satisfied by a rubber-stamped legend, because the notification did not require the words to be printed or prescribe any particular mode of marking. The objection that the goods had not been shown to be actually delivered as physician&#039;s samples was rejected, as the notification imposed no separate end-use requirement. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 11:59:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115382</link>
      <description>Physician&#039;s samples of medicines qualified for exemption where the notification required the words &quot;physician&#039;s sample, not to be sold&quot; to be clearly and conspicuously marked on the label. The condition was satisfied by a rubber-stamped legend, because the notification did not require the words to be printed or prescribe any particular mode of marking. The objection that the goods had not been shown to be actually delivered as physician&#039;s samples was rejected, as the notification imposed no separate end-use requirement. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>