<?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>2019 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389639</link>
    <description>Products such as DSN capsules and Beneficiale Liquid were held classifiable under Tariff Heading 3004 as medicaments, not under Tariff Heading 2106 as food preparations, because common parlance, medical prescription, and their therapeutic or prophylactic use showed they were used for treatment and immunity support. The Tribunal applied the common parlance test, the primary use test, and the principle that a specific medicament entry prevails over a residuary food-preparation entry. On that classification, the goods fell within the scope of Notification No. 49/2003-CE, so exemption was available and the denial of exemption could not stand. The related demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389639</link>
      <description>Products such as DSN capsules and Beneficiale Liquid were held classifiable under Tariff Heading 3004 as medicaments, not under Tariff Heading 2106 as food preparations, because common parlance, medical prescription, and their therapeutic or prophylactic use showed they were used for treatment and immunity support. The Tribunal applied the common parlance test, the primary use test, and the principle that a specific medicament entry prevails over a residuary food-preparation entry. On that classification, the goods fell within the scope of Notification No. 49/2003-CE, so exemption was available and the denial of exemption could not stand. The related demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>