<?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>1989 (2) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80155</link>
    <description>Heavy Normal Paraffins were held to fall within Item 7 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944, because the tariff entry was defined by technical criteria such as smoke point and final boiling point, and its wording was broad enough to cover mineral oil products beyond common-parlance kerosene or illuminants. The product was derived from kerosene, itself derived from petroleum, and the inclusive definition of mineral oil supported coverage of oils produced by processing or otherwise from that source. Earlier rulings under materially different tariff language were distinguished. The product was therefore classifiable under Item 7 and not under the residuary Item 68.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:17:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80155</link>
      <description>Heavy Normal Paraffins were held to fall within Item 7 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944, because the tariff entry was defined by technical criteria such as smoke point and final boiling point, and its wording was broad enough to cover mineral oil products beyond common-parlance kerosene or illuminants. The product was derived from kerosene, itself derived from petroleum, and the inclusive definition of mineral oil supported coverage of oils produced by processing or otherwise from that source. Earlier rulings under materially different tariff language were distinguished. The product was therefore classifiable under Item 7 and not under the residuary Item 68.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>