<?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>Classification as Medicaments: ingredients, dosage and licences establish medicinal character, so no differential duty or penalties follow.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97718</link>
    <description>Classification focused on whether products are Ayurvedic medicaments or cosmetics, applying the twin test of ingredient composition and common parlance together with statutory licensing; Tribunal found ingredients, dosages and drug licences established medicinal character and classified goods under Chapter 30, displacing the cosmetics classification. Liability was tested by manufacturer status under loan licence law: the job worker was held to be the manufacturer and pre-August 2011 demands against the principal were set aside. The appellant qualified for SSI exemption for Sept 2011-Feb 2012 and had paid duty from March 2012 after registration, so no differential duty nor penalties were imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Classification as Medicaments: ingredients, dosage and licences establish medicinal character, so no differential duty or penalties follow.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97718</link>
      <description>Classification focused on whether products are Ayurvedic medicaments or cosmetics, applying the twin test of ingredient composition and common parlance together with statutory licensing; Tribunal found ingredients, dosages and drug licences established medicinal character and classified goods under Chapter 30, displacing the cosmetics classification. Liability was tested by manufacturer status under loan licence law: the job worker was held to be the manufacturer and pre-August 2011 demands against the principal were set aside. The appellant qualified for SSI exemption for Sept 2011-Feb 2012 and had paid duty from March 2012 after registration, so no differential duty nor penalties were imposed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>