<?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>1990 (7) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42750</link>
    <description>Homeopathic toothpaste containing alcohol was treated as a medicinal or toilet preparation liable to duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, because alcohol may attract levy even when introduced indirectly through an ingredient. The demand under that Act was upheld, and the product could not escape assessment merely because it had also been subjected to duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the refund question, the Court directed that any application under Section 11B of the 1944 Act be entertained and considered in accordance with law, without rigid application of limitation in the special facts to avoid overlapping fiscal burden.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42750</link>
      <description>Homeopathic toothpaste containing alcohol was treated as a medicinal or toilet preparation liable to duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, because alcohol may attract levy even when introduced indirectly through an ingredient. The demand under that Act was upheld, and the product could not escape assessment merely because it had also been subjected to duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the refund question, the Court directed that any application under Section 11B of the 1944 Act be entertained and considered in accordance with law, without rigid application of limitation in the special facts to avoid overlapping fiscal burden.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>