<?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>2001 (6) TMI 108 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50639</link>
    <description>Tender Care Prickly Heat Powder was examined for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. Its composition was compared with Nycil Prickly Heat Powder and found to be broadly similar, and its specific use was to alleviate the effects of heat. On that basis, Heading 3003 was treated as the appropriate classification, and the alternative headings proposed by the departmental authorities were rejected, placing the product within the assessee&#039;s claimed tariff entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:03:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 108 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50639</link>
      <description>Tender Care Prickly Heat Powder was examined for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. Its composition was compared with Nycil Prickly Heat Powder and found to be broadly similar, and its specific use was to alleviate the effects of heat. On that basis, Heading 3003 was treated as the appropriate classification, and the alternative headings proposed by the departmental authorities were rejected, placing the product within the assessee&#039;s claimed tariff entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>