<?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>2005 (3) TMI 299 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54192</link>
    <description>A dental cleaner marketed and manufactured as a distinct oral preparation was held classifiable under Heading 3306.90, not Heading 3306.10 as toothpaste. Classification turned on HSN notes, FDA registration, BIS specifications, ingredient composition, manufacturing process and trade understanding; the product did not meet toothpaste specifications and was not shown to be regarded in trade or by regulatory authorities as toothpaste. Mere tube packing, appearance, or prior acceptance in another form did not justify reclassification. As the department&#039;s classification failed, the consequential duty demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:07:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 299 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54192</link>
      <description>A dental cleaner marketed and manufactured as a distinct oral preparation was held classifiable under Heading 3306.90, not Heading 3306.10 as toothpaste. Classification turned on HSN notes, FDA registration, BIS specifications, ingredient composition, manufacturing process and trade understanding; the product did not meet toothpaste specifications and was not shown to be regarded in trade or by regulatory authorities as toothpaste. Mere tube packing, appearance, or prior acceptance in another form did not justify reclassification. As the department&#039;s classification failed, the consequential duty demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>