<?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>1996 (12) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44907</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Trial Judge&#039;s order classifying &#039;Boroline&#039; as a drug under Tariff Item 14E, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument for a different classification post the Tariff Act of 1985. The Court determined &#039;Boroline&#039; to be an antiseptic boric ointment with medicinal properties, not a cosmetic product, based on its chemical composition and usage. The acceptance of the appellate court&#039;s order did not preclude contesting the classification, and the Court found no grounds for reclassification. The appeal was dismissed, and any excess excise duty paid would be addressed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:03:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44907</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Trial Judge&#039;s order classifying &#039;Boroline&#039; as a drug under Tariff Item 14E, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument for a different classification post the Tariff Act of 1985. The Court determined &#039;Boroline&#039; to be an antiseptic boric ointment with medicinal properties, not a cosmetic product, based on its chemical composition and usage. The acceptance of the appellate court&#039;s order did not preclude contesting the classification, and the Court found no grounds for reclassification. The appeal was dismissed, and any excess excise duty paid would be addressed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>