<?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 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118474</link>
    <description>Manufacture of Chyawanprash (Special) was treated as the decisive test for classification under the Ayurvedic medicine heading, which applies only where the product is made exclusively according to formulae in an authoritative book and sold under the specified name. Contemporaneous records such as batch cards, production records, invoices, labels, input ledgers, and employee statements supported manufacture in accordance with Ayurved Sar Sangraha. The alleged correction in the drug approval list, the alternative approved entry, and a test report relating to an export sample did not displace that evidence. On that basis, the product remained classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicine and not as a proprietary drug.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:17:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118474</link>
      <description>Manufacture of Chyawanprash (Special) was treated as the decisive test for classification under the Ayurvedic medicine heading, which applies only where the product is made exclusively according to formulae in an authoritative book and sold under the specified name. Contemporaneous records such as batch cards, production records, invoices, labels, input ledgers, and employee statements supported manufacture in accordance with Ayurved Sar Sangraha. The alleged correction in the drug approval list, the alternative approved entry, and a test report relating to an export sample did not displace that evidence. On that basis, the product remained classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicine and not as a proprietary drug.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>