https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260410 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing duty demands against the appellant company for manufacturing IV Cannula under the brands Venflon and Neoflon. It held that the IV Cannula qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 6/03-CE and its successor notifications, as they fell under the exemption entry in List 37 of Notification No. 21/02-CUS. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the interpretation in a previous case, stressing the importance of allowing cross-examination of the DGHS official. en-us Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260410 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing duty demands against the appellant company for manufacturing IV Cannula under the brands Venflon and Neoflon. It held that the IV Cannula qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 6/03-CE and its successor notifications, as they fell under the exemption entry in List 37 of Notification No. 21/02-CUS. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the interpretation in a previous case, stressing the importance of allowing cross-examination of the DGHS official. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260410