<?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 (10) TMI 52 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2954</link>
    <description>Recombinant hepatitis-B surface antigen bulk and the corresponding vaccine products were treated as vaccines and similar products under Heading 30.02 because their essential character lay in inducing antibodies and conferring immunity; Heading 35.04 applied only to protein substances not elsewhere specified, so classification favoured the assessee. For valuation, Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules could not be used to adopt the domestic selling price of comparable Indian goods, because the scheme required acceptance of the manufacturing cost plus profit method under Rule 7A. The impugned orders were therefore set aside, and the demand and penalties did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 52 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2954</link>
      <description>Recombinant hepatitis-B surface antigen bulk and the corresponding vaccine products were treated as vaccines and similar products under Heading 30.02 because their essential character lay in inducing antibodies and conferring immunity; Heading 35.04 applied only to protein substances not elsewhere specified, so classification favoured the assessee. For valuation, Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules could not be used to adopt the domestic selling price of comparable Indian goods, because the scheme required acceptance of the manufacturing cost plus profit method under Rule 7A. The impugned orders were therefore set aside, and the demand and penalties did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>