<?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>1988 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74038</link>
    <description>Methyl cellulose, being a chemical derivative of cellulose with a wide range of molecular weights, was treated as a cellulose ether and not as a separate chemically defined organic compound. It was therefore excluded from Chapter 29 by Chapter Note 1(a) and classified under Heading 39.01/06 as a cellulose ether. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 39 was read as governing only the polymer products described in that note, not as excluding specifically covered cellulose ethers. Its use in the pharmaceutical industry did not alter tariff classification, and the argument based on isomers was rejected because isomers must have the same molecular weight.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:36:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74038</link>
      <description>Methyl cellulose, being a chemical derivative of cellulose with a wide range of molecular weights, was treated as a cellulose ether and not as a separate chemically defined organic compound. It was therefore excluded from Chapter 29 by Chapter Note 1(a) and classified under Heading 39.01/06 as a cellulose ether. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 39 was read as governing only the polymer products described in that note, not as excluding specifically covered cellulose ethers. Its use in the pharmaceutical industry did not alter tariff classification, and the argument based on isomers was rejected because isomers must have the same molecular weight.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>