https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43710 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that "Handyplast" is classified as a non-curative surgical dressing rather than a medicinal preparation under Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Act. Despite disagreeing with the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court declined to intervene due to minimal duty variance, extensive litigation, and absence of constitutional grounds. The judgment highlighted the factual nuances, respondent's duty payments, and lack of substantial reasons for constitutional intervention, with no costs imposed on the parties. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43710 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that "Handyplast" is classified as a non-curative surgical dressing rather than a medicinal preparation under Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Act. Despite disagreeing with the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court declined to intervene due to minimal duty variance, extensive litigation, and absence of constitutional grounds. The judgment highlighted the factual nuances, respondent's duty payments, and lack of substantial reasons for constitutional intervention, with no costs imposed on the parties. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43710