<?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 (8) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2671</link>
    <description>Medicaments made from combinations of drugs individually specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia remained classifiable as other medicaments under Heading 3003.20 because the Revenue did not show that the combination created a new substance or a proprietary product outside the pharmacopoeial entries. Goods marketed under generic names, with wrapper composition disclosing only simple pharmacopoeial combinations, did not acquire patent or proprietary character merely because the combined formulation was not separately listed. The absence of &quot;I.P.&quot; on the wrappers was not decisive on these facts, and the interpretative approach including the singular-plural principle supported classification under Heading 3003.20 rather than Heading 3003.10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2671</link>
      <description>Medicaments made from combinations of drugs individually specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia remained classifiable as other medicaments under Heading 3003.20 because the Revenue did not show that the combination created a new substance or a proprietary product outside the pharmacopoeial entries. Goods marketed under generic names, with wrapper composition disclosing only simple pharmacopoeial combinations, did not acquire patent or proprietary character merely because the combined formulation was not separately listed. The absence of &quot;I.P.&quot; on the wrappers was not decisive on these facts, and the interpretative approach including the singular-plural principle supported classification under Heading 3003.20 rather than Heading 3003.10.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>