<?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 (3) TMI 197 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52859</link>
    <description>Classification of mukh shakti yog turned on whether the product fell under the excise tariff entry for tooth powder or under the residuary medicinal preparation entry. The classification was aligned with the earlier treatment of the comparable product Dant Mukta under heading 3306.10, and the cited Tribunal precedent was followed because there was no sufficient reason to depart from the existing position. The product was confirmed under sub-heading 3306.10, not 3006.90, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:25:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 197 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52859</link>
      <description>Classification of mukh shakti yog turned on whether the product fell under the excise tariff entry for tooth powder or under the residuary medicinal preparation entry. The classification was aligned with the earlier treatment of the comparable product Dant Mukta under heading 3306.10, and the cited Tribunal precedent was followed because there was no sufficient reason to depart from the existing position. The product was confirmed under sub-heading 3306.10, not 3006.90, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>