<?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>1995 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84005</link>
    <description>Anaerobic adhesives with a monomer as the principal ingredient and only a minor polymer additive were treated as not classifiable as adhesives based on plastics where the polymer served merely as a thickening or viscosity-modifying agent. The later polymerisation that occurs on application did not alter the product&#039;s character at clearance, and the available departmental material was insufficient to show a plastic-based preparation in commercial understanding. The notification benefit was therefore available for the covered items. For items not addressed by the technical reports, the evidentiary record was incomplete, so those matters required remand for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:12:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84005</link>
      <description>Anaerobic adhesives with a monomer as the principal ingredient and only a minor polymer additive were treated as not classifiable as adhesives based on plastics where the polymer served merely as a thickening or viscosity-modifying agent. The later polymerisation that occurs on application did not alter the product&#039;s character at clearance, and the available departmental material was insufficient to show a plastic-based preparation in commercial understanding. The notification benefit was therefore available for the covered items. For items not addressed by the technical reports, the evidentiary record was incomplete, so those matters required remand for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>