https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80815 Patta patti was held not to be strip because the tariff concept of strip required the stated technical characteristics, including supply in coil or flattened coil form, and the product was not so supplied. For the period prior to 1-8-1983, departmental clarification that strip was expected to be in coil form supported exclusion from the strip entry. After 1-8-1983, the tariff explanation was read as not treating "straight length" as an independent alternative, but only as explanatory of flattened coil. The goods were therefore classified under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) before 1-8-1983 and under Tariff Item 25(8) after 1-8-1983. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:35:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80815 Patta patti was held not to be strip because the tariff concept of strip required the stated technical characteristics, including supply in coil or flattened coil form, and the product was not so supplied. For the period prior to 1-8-1983, departmental clarification that strip was expected to be in coil form supported exclusion from the strip entry. After 1-8-1983, the tariff explanation was read as not treating "straight length" as an independent alternative, but only as explanatory of flattened coil. The goods were therefore classified under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) before 1-8-1983 and under Tariff Item 25(8) after 1-8-1983. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80815