<?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>1978 (3) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45602</link>
    <description>Tinctures, extracts and spirit preparations used therapeutically were treated as &quot;medicinal preparations&quot; under Section 2(g) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, because the statutory definition covered substances used as remedies for treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease; the challenge to duty on that basis failed. Physicians&#039; samples distributed free of cost were not exempt from excise duty because the Act contained no such exemption, but assessable value had to reflect only the manufacturing element. Manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit were relevant, while post-manufacturing elements and profit not actually earned on free samples were excluded; refund claims were remitted for reconsideration to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:04:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45602</link>
      <description>Tinctures, extracts and spirit preparations used therapeutically were treated as &quot;medicinal preparations&quot; under Section 2(g) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, because the statutory definition covered substances used as remedies for treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease; the challenge to duty on that basis failed. Physicians&#039; samples distributed free of cost were not exempt from excise duty because the Act contained no such exemption, but assessable value had to reflect only the manufacturing element. Manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit were relevant, while post-manufacturing elements and profit not actually earned on free samples were excluded; refund claims were remitted for reconsideration to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>