<?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>1985 (10) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72082</link>
    <description>FRP corrugated translucent roofing sheets were held classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) as articles made of plastics because polyester resin predominated and fibreglass did not alter the essential character of the goods. The residuary Tariff Item 68 was unavailable since a specific tariff entry covered the product, and exemption as profiles under Notification No. 68/71 failed because the goods were marketed and understood as sheets, including corrugated sheets. The procedural challenge based on denial of hearing also failed because a de novo adjudication and personal hearing had already been afforded, with further notice of the appellate hearing ignored by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72082</link>
      <description>FRP corrugated translucent roofing sheets were held classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) as articles made of plastics because polyester resin predominated and fibreglass did not alter the essential character of the goods. The residuary Tariff Item 68 was unavailable since a specific tariff entry covered the product, and exemption as profiles under Notification No. 68/71 failed because the goods were marketed and understood as sheets, including corrugated sheets. The procedural challenge based on denial of hearing also failed because a de novo adjudication and personal hearing had already been afforded, with further notice of the appellate hearing ignored by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>