<?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>2004 (12) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47167</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of turmeric skin cream and vajradanti toothpaste and tooth powder turns on common parlance, not scientific or technical meaning alone. The Supreme Court stated that previous authority did not impose rigid universal tests requiring sale only on prescription or through chemists before a product can qualify as a medicament. The revenue retained the burden to prove, with reliable evidence of consumer understanding, that the products were understood as cosmetics or toilet preparations. The show-cause notices were founded on a mistaken view of the governing test, and the factual basis relied on was insufficient to displace the assessee&#039;s Chapter 30 classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47167</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of turmeric skin cream and vajradanti toothpaste and tooth powder turns on common parlance, not scientific or technical meaning alone. The Supreme Court stated that previous authority did not impose rigid universal tests requiring sale only on prescription or through chemists before a product can qualify as a medicament. The revenue retained the burden to prove, with reliable evidence of consumer understanding, that the products were understood as cosmetics or toilet preparations. The show-cause notices were founded on a mistaken view of the governing test, and the factual basis relied on was insufficient to displace the assessee&#039;s Chapter 30 classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>