<?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>2006 (3) TMI 375 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117524</link>
    <description>Denture cleanser, a powder used for cleaning artificial teeth, was treated as a preparation for oral or dental hygiene under heading 33.06. The classification dispute turned on whether it fell within sub-heading 3306.10 as tooth powder or under 3306.90 as other oral or dental hygiene preparations. The tariff wording was read broadly, with no restriction limiting tooth powder to preparations for natural teeth only, and no distinction drawn between natural teeth and dentures for classification purposes. A cited precedent was found distinguishable because it concerned a different product and the issue whether it was toothpaste. The product was classified under sub-heading 3306.10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:20:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 375 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117524</link>
      <description>Denture cleanser, a powder used for cleaning artificial teeth, was treated as a preparation for oral or dental hygiene under heading 33.06. The classification dispute turned on whether it fell within sub-heading 3306.10 as tooth powder or under 3306.90 as other oral or dental hygiene preparations. The tariff wording was read broadly, with no restriction limiting tooth powder to preparations for natural teeth only, and no distinction drawn between natural teeth and dentures for classification purposes. A cited precedent was found distinguishable because it concerned a different product and the issue whether it was toothpaste. The product was classified under sub-heading 3306.10.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>