https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82831 Celluloc Chemical, described in test reports as cotton waste, dry pulp of cellulose, or a cellulose chemical derivative, was treated as cellulose under Heading 3912.90 because Heading 39.12 covers cellulose and its chemical derivatives not elsewhere specified, and the material was shown to be derived from cotton in essentially pure cellulose form rather than as a plastic product. The classification under Heading 3800.10 failed. On penalty, continued clearance of goods without duty payment or prescribed Central Excise compliance justified retention of penalty in principle, but the quantum was moderated on the facts, reducing the penalty from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:05:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82831 Celluloc Chemical, described in test reports as cotton waste, dry pulp of cellulose, or a cellulose chemical derivative, was treated as cellulose under Heading 3912.90 because Heading 39.12 covers cellulose and its chemical derivatives not elsewhere specified, and the material was shown to be derived from cotton in essentially pure cellulose form rather than as a plastic product. The classification under Heading 3800.10 failed. On penalty, continued clearance of goods without duty payment or prescribed Central Excise compliance justified retention of penalty in principle, but the quantum was moderated on the facts, reducing the penalty from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82831