<?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 (11) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81020</link>
    <description>Correcting fluid and diluter packed in a common container were treated as distinct products, not a taxable set under Rule 3(b) read with Note 2 to Section VI, because the fluid was ready for use and the diluter did not create a new product; they were therefore to be classified separately under their respective tariff headings. On valuation, the assessable value had to reflect the product actually manufactured and cleared, so the correcting fluid alone was the relevant assessable value and the diluter could not be added merely because it shared the same pack. The combined classification and combined valuation approach was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:19:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81020</link>
      <description>Correcting fluid and diluter packed in a common container were treated as distinct products, not a taxable set under Rule 3(b) read with Note 2 to Section VI, because the fluid was ready for use and the diluter did not create a new product; they were therefore to be classified separately under their respective tariff headings. On valuation, the assessable value had to reflect the product actually manufactured and cleared, so the correcting fluid alone was the relevant assessable value and the diluter could not be added merely because it shared the same pack. The combined classification and combined valuation approach was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>