<?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>1987 (7) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74710</link>
    <description>Tariff Item 15A(2) covers plastic material in its different shapes and forms, not articles made from plastic mixed with other materials. The controlling test applied was whether the article was wholly made of commercially known plastic. Because the product contained only 28% plastic and the balance was non-plastic material, it did not satisfy that test. It was therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 rather than Tariff Item 15A(2), and the refund claim could not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:13:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74710</link>
      <description>Tariff Item 15A(2) covers plastic material in its different shapes and forms, not articles made from plastic mixed with other materials. The controlling test applied was whether the article was wholly made of commercially known plastic. Because the product contained only 28% plastic and the balance was non-plastic material, it did not satisfy that test. It was therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 rather than Tariff Item 15A(2), and the refund claim could not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>