<?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 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50915</link>
    <description>Biological preparations specifically used as blood-grouping reagents or diagnostic reagents administered in measured doses are excluded from Heading 3002 by Chapter Note 3 and classified under Heading 3005. Antisera used for blood typing and agglutination tests, as well as purified protein derivative products used in diagnosis, fall within that reagent classification rather than the sera heading. Products in Annexure B and Freund&#039;s Adjuvant were not finally classified on the existing record and were remanded for de novo consideration, while the cum-duty treatment of sale price was sustained and the starting point for duty liability was left for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:22:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50915</link>
      <description>Biological preparations specifically used as blood-grouping reagents or diagnostic reagents administered in measured doses are excluded from Heading 3002 by Chapter Note 3 and classified under Heading 3005. Antisera used for blood typing and agglutination tests, as well as purified protein derivative products used in diagnosis, fall within that reagent classification rather than the sera heading. Products in Annexure B and Freund&#039;s Adjuvant were not finally classified on the existing record and were remanded for de novo consideration, while the cum-duty treatment of sale price was sustained and the starting point for duty liability was left for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>