<?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 (1) TMI 119 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52643</link>
    <description>Canifur Liquid and Canifur AZ Liquid were treated as Ayurvedic medicaments under Heading 30.03 because their ingredients were found in authoritative Ayurvedic texts, their labels identified them as Ayurvedic veterinary medicine, and the record supported therapeutic and prophylactic use against ectoparasites, dandruff, lice and ticks. The fact that the formulations were proprietary and contained fillers did not disqualify them from medicinal classification. As the Revenue produced no material showing that their principal use was as a hair preparation under Heading 33.05, the burden of establishing a different classification was not discharged, and Chapter 33 classification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 119 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52643</link>
      <description>Canifur Liquid and Canifur AZ Liquid were treated as Ayurvedic medicaments under Heading 30.03 because their ingredients were found in authoritative Ayurvedic texts, their labels identified them as Ayurvedic veterinary medicine, and the record supported therapeutic and prophylactic use against ectoparasites, dandruff, lice and ticks. The fact that the formulations were proprietary and contained fillers did not disqualify them from medicinal classification. As the Revenue produced no material showing that their principal use was as a hair preparation under Heading 33.05, the burden of establishing a different classification was not discharged, and Chapter 33 classification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>