<?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>2024 (7) TMI 685 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755465</link>
    <description>A technical tariff dispute concerned whether Suncros UVA Lotion/Gel/Hyclean Cream fell under medicaments in Chapter 3004 or cosmetics in Chapter 3304. Product literature, ingredient composition, prescription-only labeling, and sale under medical supervision were treated as indicators of medicament classification, while the classification issue was remanded for reconsideration because it should be decided on proper technical material and expert evaluation rather than assumption. On limitation, the dispute involved competing tariff entries and the assessee had disclosed the product in returns; in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand for that period was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:18:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 685 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755465</link>
      <description>A technical tariff dispute concerned whether Suncros UVA Lotion/Gel/Hyclean Cream fell under medicaments in Chapter 3004 or cosmetics in Chapter 3304. Product literature, ingredient composition, prescription-only labeling, and sale under medical supervision were treated as indicators of medicament classification, while the classification issue was remanded for reconsideration because it should be decided on proper technical material and expert evaluation rather than assumption. On limitation, the dispute involved competing tariff entries and the assessee had disclosed the product in returns; in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand for that period was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>