<?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 (5) TMI 210 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359646</link>
    <description>Nuzen Gold Herbal Hair Oil was treated as an ayurvedic proprietary medicament under Chapter 30 because its essential character, therapeutic use for dandruff, hair fall and premature baldness, Ayurvedic licence, label description and ingredients supported medicinal classification. The presence of perfume or over-the-counter sale did not by itself make it a cosmetic hair oil under Chapter 33. Once Chapter 30 classification was accepted, the differential duty demand, interest, penalties and confiscation-related objections had no surviving , and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because the goods were found in the factory premises and confiscation had been rightly declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 210 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359646</link>
      <description>Nuzen Gold Herbal Hair Oil was treated as an ayurvedic proprietary medicament under Chapter 30 because its essential character, therapeutic use for dandruff, hair fall and premature baldness, Ayurvedic licence, label description and ingredients supported medicinal classification. The presence of perfume or over-the-counter sale did not by itself make it a cosmetic hair oil under Chapter 33. Once Chapter 30 classification was accepted, the differential duty demand, interest, penalties and confiscation-related objections had no surviving , and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because the goods were found in the factory premises and confiscation had been rightly declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>