<?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>1996 (9) TMI 611 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174963</link>
    <description>Prickly heat powder containing boric acid, salicylic acid and zinc oxide was treated as a cosmetic and toilet preparation, not a patent or proprietary medicine, because its medicinal ingredients were only subsidiary. The classification turned on the product&#039;s true identity and essential character under the amended tariff entry, including Explanation II to Item 14F, which covers goods with only subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or subsidiary curative or prophylactic value. Its market presentation, lack of prescription-style warnings or dosage, and HSN materials supported cosmetic classification. Sale or manufacture under a drug licence did not control the tariff result once the amended excise entry was applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:59:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 611 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174963</link>
      <description>Prickly heat powder containing boric acid, salicylic acid and zinc oxide was treated as a cosmetic and toilet preparation, not a patent or proprietary medicine, because its medicinal ingredients were only subsidiary. The classification turned on the product&#039;s true identity and essential character under the amended tariff entry, including Explanation II to Item 14F, which covers goods with only subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or subsidiary curative or prophylactic value. Its market presentation, lack of prescription-style warnings or dosage, and HSN materials supported cosmetic classification. Sale or manufacture under a drug licence did not control the tariff result once the amended excise entry was applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>