<?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 (3) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84035</link>
    <description>Sheet moulding compound was examined for classification under Heading 39.07 as a primary form of polyester resin or under Heading 39.20 as plastic sheets, with the competing view turning on whether its sheet form changed its tariff character. The exemption claim under Notifications No. 133/86-C.E. and 53/88-C.E. depended on the same classification and on whether the product could be treated as polyester resin in primary form or a covered moulding compound. Because the technical and trade evidence had not been adequately considered, and further material was to be allowed in fairness, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and reconsideration in observance of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:23:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84035</link>
      <description>Sheet moulding compound was examined for classification under Heading 39.07 as a primary form of polyester resin or under Heading 39.20 as plastic sheets, with the competing view turning on whether its sheet form changed its tariff character. The exemption claim under Notifications No. 133/86-C.E. and 53/88-C.E. depended on the same classification and on whether the product could be treated as polyester resin in primary form or a covered moulding compound. Because the technical and trade evidence had not been adequately considered, and further material was to be allowed in fairness, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and reconsideration in observance of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>