https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83344 The appeal involved the classification of "P.U. Cement" under the Central Excise Tariff, specifically whether it should be categorized under Tariff Item 15A(1) or Tariff Item 68. The dispute centered on whether a chemical change occurred during manufacturing. The Vice President and Member (J) determined that no chemical change took place, leading to the allowance of the appeal without remand. The judgment emphasized the necessity of demonstrating the emergence of a new commodity with distinct characteristics and market recognition, ultimately concluding that the product did not fall under Tariff Item 15A(1). en-us Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:47:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83344 The appeal involved the classification of "P.U. Cement" under the Central Excise Tariff, specifically whether it should be categorized under Tariff Item 15A(1) or Tariff Item 68. The dispute centered on whether a chemical change occurred during manufacturing. The Vice President and Member (J) determined that no chemical change took place, leading to the allowance of the appeal without remand. The judgment emphasized the necessity of demonstrating the emergence of a new commodity with distinct characteristics and market recognition, ultimately concluding that the product did not fall under Tariff Item 15A(1). Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83344