<?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>1986 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72210</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the classification of yarn blends containing viscose, wool, acrylic fiber, and polyester fiber under Item 18 III(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. It determined that acrylic fiber is a non-cellulosic fiber for tariff purposes, despite arguments to the contrary based on previous judgments. The tribunal emphasized that judgments under previous tariff structures cannot automatically apply to the current structure and found that the tariff entries clearly delineate when acrylic fiber should be considered non-cellulosic. The appeal was rejected, and the classification and duty assessment were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 12:38:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72210</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the classification of yarn blends containing viscose, wool, acrylic fiber, and polyester fiber under Item 18 III(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. It determined that acrylic fiber is a non-cellulosic fiber for tariff purposes, despite arguments to the contrary based on previous judgments. The tribunal emphasized that judgments under previous tariff structures cannot automatically apply to the current structure and found that the tariff entries clearly delineate when acrylic fiber should be considered non-cellulosic. The appeal was rejected, and the classification and duty assessment were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>