https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30611 Products manufactured under a drug licence and marketed with medicinal claims were treated as Ayurvedic medicaments, not cosmetics, because their labels, ingredients and therapeutic character supported classification under Chapter 30; the Revenue failed to prove they were cosmetics under Chapter 33. Valuation was to follow the wholesale-price basis, with lawful deductions, since the parties were not related persons. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the record showed a continuing classification dispute and did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement. The Tribunal's view on classification, valuation and limitation was affirmed. en-us Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30611 Products manufactured under a drug licence and marketed with medicinal claims were treated as Ayurvedic medicaments, not cosmetics, because their labels, ingredients and therapeutic character supported classification under Chapter 30; the Revenue failed to prove they were cosmetics under Chapter 33. Valuation was to follow the wholesale-price basis, with lawful deductions, since the parties were not related persons. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the record showed a continuing classification dispute and did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement. The Tribunal's view on classification, valuation and limitation was affirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30611