<?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>2010 (10) TMI 233 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203434</link>
    <description>Products capable of both medicinal and cosmetic use were classified by applying the common parlance test and the statutory distinction between cosmetics and medicaments. Goods are medicaments when they are understood as medicines for treatment, prevention, cure or mitigation of disease, and where their ingredients are supported by authoritative Ayurvedic texts. Evidence of use for cuts, wounds, burns and related skin conditions, supported by practitioner affidavits, certificates, prescriptions, licences, labels and texts, showed medicinal character. Mere cosmetic utility or the presence of fillers did not change that character. The burden to prove classification as cosmetics lay on the revenue, and it was not discharged; the products were treated as medicaments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 233 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203434</link>
      <description>Products capable of both medicinal and cosmetic use were classified by applying the common parlance test and the statutory distinction between cosmetics and medicaments. Goods are medicaments when they are understood as medicines for treatment, prevention, cure or mitigation of disease, and where their ingredients are supported by authoritative Ayurvedic texts. Evidence of use for cuts, wounds, burns and related skin conditions, supported by practitioner affidavits, certificates, prescriptions, licences, labels and texts, showed medicinal character. Mere cosmetic utility or the presence of fillers did not change that character. The burden to prove classification as cosmetics lay on the revenue, and it was not discharged; the products were treated as medicaments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>