https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72398 Acrylic hand-knitting yarn that was steamed and dyed was treated as bulked yarn for tariff purposes, because the processing imparted bulkiness and the absence of a texturising machine was immaterial; it was therefore not classifiable under Tariff Item 18(i) as claimed. The limitation objection also failed, as the demand was confined to the permissible period and was not defeated by earlier clearances through the stated procedure. Where the dates of actual removal were ascertainable, duty was held payable by reference to that date under Rule 9A(1)(ii), not Rule 9A(5). The penalty was sustained because the dyed yarn was not properly covered by a classification list or excise records. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 12:13:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72398 Acrylic hand-knitting yarn that was steamed and dyed was treated as bulked yarn for tariff purposes, because the processing imparted bulkiness and the absence of a texturising machine was immaterial; it was therefore not classifiable under Tariff Item 18(i) as claimed. The limitation objection also failed, as the demand was confined to the permissible period and was not defeated by earlier clearances through the stated procedure. Where the dates of actual removal were ascertainable, duty was held payable by reference to that date under Rule 9A(1)(ii), not Rule 9A(5). The penalty was sustained because the dyed yarn was not properly covered by a classification list or excise records. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72398