<?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 (4) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172748</link>
    <description>Multivitamin syrup and drops were treated as medicaments/classifiable under Heading 3003 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 because the issue was governed by an earlier Larger Bench ruling on similar preparations. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order had followed that binding view and no contrary basis was shown to depart from it. Accordingly, classification under Heading 2936 was rejected, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the Heading 3003 classification failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:18:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172748</link>
      <description>Multivitamin syrup and drops were treated as medicaments/classifiable under Heading 3003 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 because the issue was governed by an earlier Larger Bench ruling on similar preparations. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order had followed that binding view and no contrary basis was shown to depart from it. Accordingly, classification under Heading 2936 was rejected, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the Heading 3003 classification failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>