<?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>1983 (9) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166668</link>
    <description>Packed liquid paraffin in drums bearing the assessee&#039;s name and label was treated as a patent and proprietary medicine because the marking indicated a trade connection between the contents and the proprietor; sale in bulk containers to industrial consumers did not change that classification. The classification under Item 14E was therefore sustained. The extended limitation period was also upheld because the factory did not make a complete and true disclosure of the goods&#039; nature, failed to disclose sale in labelled drums, and wrongly presented the product as exempt drug intermediates; suppression and incomplete declaration justified invocation of the longer period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:53:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166668</link>
      <description>Packed liquid paraffin in drums bearing the assessee&#039;s name and label was treated as a patent and proprietary medicine because the marking indicated a trade connection between the contents and the proprietor; sale in bulk containers to industrial consumers did not change that classification. The classification under Item 14E was therefore sustained. The extended limitation period was also upheld because the factory did not make a complete and true disclosure of the goods&#039; nature, failed to disclose sale in labelled drums, and wrongly presented the product as exempt drug intermediates; suppression and incomplete declaration justified invocation of the longer period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>