<?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 (4) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74342</link>
    <description>Metallised yarn made by cutting imported metallo-plastic films into fine lengths was held classifiable under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 18. The reasoning followed prior High Court and Supreme Court views that the product was not manufactured out of man-made fibres, so it could not be treated as synthetic yarn under Item 18. On that basis, the competing classification under Item 18 was rejected and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:46:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74342</link>
      <description>Metallised yarn made by cutting imported metallo-plastic films into fine lengths was held classifiable under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 18. The reasoning followed prior High Court and Supreme Court views that the product was not manufactured out of man-made fibres, so it could not be treated as synthetic yarn under Item 18. On that basis, the competing classification under Item 18 was rejected and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>