<?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>1988 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82332</link>
    <description>Scooter and motorcycle saddles made by single-shot injection moulding were held not to fall within Tariff Item 15A(4), because that entry covers only articles made of polyurethane foam. The manufacturing process and the finished condition of the goods showed that they emerged as ready-to-use saddles or seats, not as polyurethane foam articles in the tariff sense. Applying the commercial parlance test, the products were understood in trade as vehicle saddles or seats, identified by their function rather than by the material used. As no further processing was required and the goods were not commonly known as polyurethane foam articles, classification under Tariff Item 68 was correct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:39:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82332</link>
      <description>Scooter and motorcycle saddles made by single-shot injection moulding were held not to fall within Tariff Item 15A(4), because that entry covers only articles made of polyurethane foam. The manufacturing process and the finished condition of the goods showed that they emerged as ready-to-use saddles or seats, not as polyurethane foam articles in the tariff sense. Applying the commercial parlance test, the products were understood in trade as vehicle saddles or seats, identified by their function rather than by the material used. As no further processing was required and the goods were not commonly known as polyurethane foam articles, classification under Tariff Item 68 was correct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>