<?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>1993 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47261</link>
    <description>Patent or proprietary medicines remain eligible for exemption under Notification No. 116/69 where additional ingredients are only pharmaceutical necessities, are therapeutically inert, and do not interfere with the scheduled ingredient&#039;s therapeutic or prophylactic activity. Amezole Tablets satisfied these conditions because their additional ingredients operated only as excipients and not as antacids. The exemption claim therefore succeeded, and the excise orders were set aside with consequential relief. Although an alternative statutory remedy existed, writ relief was not refused because the petition had long been entertained and proceeded to merits hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:13:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47261</link>
      <description>Patent or proprietary medicines remain eligible for exemption under Notification No. 116/69 where additional ingredients are only pharmaceutical necessities, are therapeutically inert, and do not interfere with the scheduled ingredient&#039;s therapeutic or prophylactic activity. Amezole Tablets satisfied these conditions because their additional ingredients operated only as excipients and not as antacids. The exemption claim therefore succeeded, and the excise orders were set aside with consequential relief. Although an alternative statutory remedy existed, writ relief was not refused because the petition had long been entertained and proceeded to merits hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>