<?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>2007 (5) TMI 31 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1568</link>
    <description>Excise classification of products with ayurvedic ingredients, drug-licence manufacture, medicinal carton descriptions and supporting medical affidavits depends on their common-parlance understanding and user perception. Where no contrary evidence establishes that the goods are understood as hair oil, the Revenue does not discharge its burden to classify them under the hair-oil tariff entry rather than as ayurvedic medicaments. Extended limitation is unavailable where the manufacturer disclosed production in a departmental declaration and the department, despite notice, remained inactive without seeking clarification. The classification demand and consequential penalties therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 31 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1568</link>
      <description>Excise classification of products with ayurvedic ingredients, drug-licence manufacture, medicinal carton descriptions and supporting medical affidavits depends on their common-parlance understanding and user perception. Where no contrary evidence establishes that the goods are understood as hair oil, the Revenue does not discharge its burden to classify them under the hair-oil tariff entry rather than as ayurvedic medicaments. Extended limitation is unavailable where the manufacturer disclosed production in a departmental declaration and the department, despite notice, remained inactive without seeking clarification. The classification demand and consequential penalties therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>