<?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>1991 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81401</link>
    <description>Cellulosic spun yarn made by blending viscose fibre of cellulosic origin, predominating by weight, with non-cellulosic waste was classified under Tariff Item 18-III(i) rather than 18-III(ii). The Tribunal treated non-cellulosic waste as distinct from non-cellulosic fibre for tariff purposes, noting that waste is marked by variable lengths and lack of homogeneity, while staple fibre has controlled, relatively uniform length. It found that the blending material was synthetic waste, not non-cellulosic fibre in the statutory sense, and rejected the Department&#039;s contention that fibre arose only at the spinning stage. Classification therefore followed the nature of the input used in manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:54:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81401</link>
      <description>Cellulosic spun yarn made by blending viscose fibre of cellulosic origin, predominating by weight, with non-cellulosic waste was classified under Tariff Item 18-III(i) rather than 18-III(ii). The Tribunal treated non-cellulosic waste as distinct from non-cellulosic fibre for tariff purposes, noting that waste is marked by variable lengths and lack of homogeneity, while staple fibre has controlled, relatively uniform length. It found that the blending material was synthetic waste, not non-cellulosic fibre in the statutory sense, and rejected the Department&#039;s contention that fibre arose only at the spinning stage. Classification therefore followed the nature of the input used in manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>