<?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>1990 (7) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80701</link>
    <description>Rustodine was held to be classifiable as a surface active preparation under Item 15AA of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff because the test report showed phosphoric acid, organic compounds, water and organic solvents, together with surface active properties and a surface tension difference within the prescribed limit. As the principal active ingredients were less than 5% by weight, the product also satisfied the exemption entry for surface active preparations and washing preparations of that composition, and qualified for the benefit of Notifications Nos. 101/66 and 208/69. The limitation issue was not examined because the merits were ining.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:11:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80701</link>
      <description>Rustodine was held to be classifiable as a surface active preparation under Item 15AA of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff because the test report showed phosphoric acid, organic compounds, water and organic solvents, together with surface active properties and a surface tension difference within the prescribed limit. As the principal active ingredients were less than 5% by weight, the product also satisfied the exemption entry for surface active preparations and washing preparations of that composition, and qualified for the benefit of Notifications Nos. 101/66 and 208/69. The limitation issue was not examined because the merits were ining.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>