<?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>2017 (9) TMI 2050 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463841</link>
    <description>White or yellow petroleum jelly [IP] was treated as a drug because it was manufactured under a drug licence, listed in Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and had recognised medicinal use for mitigating or preventing skin-related disorders. Applying the statutory distinctions between drugs, cosmetics and toilet preparations, the Court noted that cosmetics are meant for cleansing, beautifying or altering appearance, and that classification turns on the nature, use and statutory treatment of the product. The revenue failed to show that the product was a petroleum sub-product attracting the higher entry. It was therefore classified as a drug under Entry 67(i) of Schedule II(a) and taxed at 5%.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 19:36:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=851545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 2050 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463841</link>
      <description>White or yellow petroleum jelly [IP] was treated as a drug because it was manufactured under a drug licence, listed in Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and had recognised medicinal use for mitigating or preventing skin-related disorders. Applying the statutory distinctions between drugs, cosmetics and toilet preparations, the Court noted that cosmetics are meant for cleansing, beautifying or altering appearance, and that classification turns on the nature, use and statutory treatment of the product. The revenue failed to show that the product was a petroleum sub-product attracting the higher entry. It was therefore classified as a drug under Entry 67(i) of Schedule II(a) and taxed at 5%.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>