<?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>2018 (4) TMI 213 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358102</link>
    <description>Hair oil classification for excise purposes depends on its composition, intended use and overall character rather than the label alone. On the facts, the product was used for dandruff, premature greying and split ends, and the Drug Controller and Licensing Authority had treated it as an Ayurvedic medicine. The appellate authority&#039;s finding that the goods belonged under Chapter 30, not as a cosmetic under Chapter 33, was supported by the record and earlier case-law considered by the parties. The Department failed to show any error in that classification analysis, so the Chapter 30 treatment was sustained and the departmental challenge rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 213 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358102</link>
      <description>Hair oil classification for excise purposes depends on its composition, intended use and overall character rather than the label alone. On the facts, the product was used for dandruff, premature greying and split ends, and the Drug Controller and Licensing Authority had treated it as an Ayurvedic medicine. The appellate authority&#039;s finding that the goods belonged under Chapter 30, not as a cosmetic under Chapter 33, was supported by the record and earlier case-law considered by the parties. The Department failed to show any error in that classification analysis, so the Chapter 30 treatment was sustained and the departmental challenge rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>