<?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 264 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53191</link>
    <description>Bulk drugs were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and the concessional 10% ad valorem duty because Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia was treated as an official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain, having been issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society with statutory and regulatory character. The assessee was also entitled to rely on the explanatory note in Trade Notice No. 24/95, which preserved the earlier concession for other bulk drugs under the predecessor notification. As the later notification retained the same definition of bulk drugs, the concession was found to continue, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:26:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 264 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53191</link>
      <description>Bulk drugs were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and the concessional 10% ad valorem duty because Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia was treated as an official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain, having been issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society with statutory and regulatory character. The assessee was also entitled to rely on the explanatory note in Trade Notice No. 24/95, which preserved the earlier concession for other bulk drugs under the predecessor notification. As the later notification retained the same definition of bulk drugs, the concession was found to continue, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>