<?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>1964 (12) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45805</link>
    <description>Hostacycline injections were held to fall under the customs tariff entry for antibiotics, because ascorbic acid and similar accompanying ingredients functioned only as buffering or stabilising agents and had no therapeutic value; classification under the broader patent or proprietary medicines entry was therefore illegal. The refund suit was also held not to be premature, as failure to pursue a further statutory remedy did not bar the civil court where that step would serve no useful purpose. The civil court was said to have jurisdiction to review a manifestly erroneous or perverse customs classification and grant relief, so the duty levy could not stand and refund with costs followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:45:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (12) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45805</link>
      <description>Hostacycline injections were held to fall under the customs tariff entry for antibiotics, because ascorbic acid and similar accompanying ingredients functioned only as buffering or stabilising agents and had no therapeutic value; classification under the broader patent or proprietary medicines entry was therefore illegal. The refund suit was also held not to be premature, as failure to pursue a further statutory remedy did not bar the civil court where that step would serve no useful purpose. The civil court was said to have jurisdiction to review a manifestly erroneous or perverse customs classification and grant relief, so the duty levy could not stand and refund with costs followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>