<?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 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72517</link>
    <description>Non-automotive gaskets made from duty-paid asbestos gasketing sheets were treated as a new manufacture, but the tariff question turned on whether Item 22F(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff covered a further product made from an already manufactured intermediate article. The phrase &quot;manufactures therefrom&quot; was construed to mean direct manufacture from mineral fibre or yarn, not from goods previously made out of those materials. Because the gaskets were produced from asbestos sheets and not directly from fibre or yarn, Item 22F(iv) did not apply. As the goods were not otherwise specifically covered, they fell under the residuary Item 68, and the Revenue&#039;s classification claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (6) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72517</link>
      <description>Non-automotive gaskets made from duty-paid asbestos gasketing sheets were treated as a new manufacture, but the tariff question turned on whether Item 22F(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff covered a further product made from an already manufactured intermediate article. The phrase &quot;manufactures therefrom&quot; was construed to mean direct manufacture from mineral fibre or yarn, not from goods previously made out of those materials. Because the gaskets were produced from asbestos sheets and not directly from fibre or yarn, Item 22F(iv) did not apply. As the goods were not otherwise specifically covered, they fell under the residuary Item 68, and the Revenue&#039;s classification claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>