<?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>1984 (7) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74991</link>
    <description>Nylon monomer castings made from caprolactum were treated as non-plastic goods for tariff purposes because caprolactum is a monomer and not a plastic material, and polymerisation occurred only during manufacture after pouring into moulds. The Tribunal followed Gujarat and Rajasthan High Court interpretations that Item 15A(2) covers articles made from plastic raw material, not goods produced from non-plastic material that becomes plastic in the course of manufacture. As no other specific tariff entry applied, the residuary Item 68 governed classification. The stated consequence was that duty demand, confiscation and penalties based on Item 15A(2) could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:03:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74991</link>
      <description>Nylon monomer castings made from caprolactum were treated as non-plastic goods for tariff purposes because caprolactum is a monomer and not a plastic material, and polymerisation occurred only during manufacture after pouring into moulds. The Tribunal followed Gujarat and Rajasthan High Court interpretations that Item 15A(2) covers articles made from plastic raw material, not goods produced from non-plastic material that becomes plastic in the course of manufacture. As no other specific tariff entry applied, the residuary Item 68 governed classification. The stated consequence was that duty demand, confiscation and penalties based on Item 15A(2) could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>