<?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 (8) TMI 392 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756688</link>
    <description>Boro-Plus Antiseptic Cream was held to fall within Entry 41 of Schedule II Part (A) as a medicated ointment rather than the residuary unclassified category under Schedule V. The Court applied a classification test based on the intrinsic nature of the product and its common parlance understanding, and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on composition, label description, drug licence, expert opinion and trade understanding. The exclusion of antiseptic cream from the amended entry did not displace a product otherwise proved to be a medicated ointment. As no perversity, absence of evidence, or legal infirmity was shown, the revisional court had no basis to interfere.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2024 17:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 392 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756688</link>
      <description>Boro-Plus Antiseptic Cream was held to fall within Entry 41 of Schedule II Part (A) as a medicated ointment rather than the residuary unclassified category under Schedule V. The Court applied a classification test based on the intrinsic nature of the product and its common parlance understanding, and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on composition, label description, drug licence, expert opinion and trade understanding. The exclusion of antiseptic cream from the amended entry did not displace a product otherwise proved to be a medicated ointment. As no perversity, absence of evidence, or legal infirmity was shown, the revisional court had no basis to interfere.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>