<?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>1985 (7) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41666</link>
    <description>Sanitary pads were treated as &quot;drugs&quot; under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act because the statutory definition is wide enough to cover products used for treatment or prevention of disease or infection. Relying on the earlier view that non-medicated surgical dressings fall within that definition and on the Ministry&#039;s clarification covering absorbent cotton wool, gauzes and bandages, the Court held that sanitary pads used to manage bleeding and prevent infection share the same character. The common parlance test was held inapplicable where the statute provides an expansive definition, and the exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE was therefore available under Tariff Item 68.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:12:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41666</link>
      <description>Sanitary pads were treated as &quot;drugs&quot; under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act because the statutory definition is wide enough to cover products used for treatment or prevention of disease or infection. Relying on the earlier view that non-medicated surgical dressings fall within that definition and on the Ministry&#039;s clarification covering absorbent cotton wool, gauzes and bandages, the Court held that sanitary pads used to manage bleeding and prevent infection share the same character. The common parlance test was held inapplicable where the statute provides an expansive definition, and the exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE was therefore available under Tariff Item 68.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>