<?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>1976 (5) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45828</link>
    <description>An Ayurvedic medicinal preparation made from recognised Ayurvedic ingredients through a traditional process was held to fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;Ayurvedic preparation&quot; under Entry 3(i), even though it was not formulated from a recipe in a recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. The court treated the undefined statutory expression in its commonly understood sense, relied on the scheme of the Rules supporting traditional asavas and aristas, and rejected the view that prior government notification or pharmacopoeial mention was a necessary condition for Ayurvedic character. The product was therefore outside Entry 3(iii), and the assessee&#039;s classification claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:12:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (5) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45828</link>
      <description>An Ayurvedic medicinal preparation made from recognised Ayurvedic ingredients through a traditional process was held to fall within the ordinary meaning of &quot;Ayurvedic preparation&quot; under Entry 3(i), even though it was not formulated from a recipe in a recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. The court treated the undefined statutory expression in its commonly understood sense, relied on the scheme of the Rules supporting traditional asavas and aristas, and rejected the view that prior government notification or pharmacopoeial mention was a necessary condition for Ayurvedic character. The product was therefore outside Entry 3(iii), and the assessee&#039;s classification claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>