<?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 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84125</link>
    <description>Multilayer bags stitched from HDPE woven fabric laminated with kraft paper, with an inner kraft layer and LDPE liner, were analysed for exemption under Entry No. 40 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The Tribunal focused on the material giving the goods their commercial and functional character, treating the outer laminated HDPE and kraft structure as the principal component and the inner paper and LDPE layers as reinforcement and lining. It also noted that the presence of LDPE as an inner liner for a specific use did not make LDPE the essential character of the goods. On that basis, the appellant failed to establish eligibility for the claimed exemption, and the contrary view of another Collector (Appeals) was not treated as binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:13:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84125</link>
      <description>Multilayer bags stitched from HDPE woven fabric laminated with kraft paper, with an inner kraft layer and LDPE liner, were analysed for exemption under Entry No. 40 of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The Tribunal focused on the material giving the goods their commercial and functional character, treating the outer laminated HDPE and kraft structure as the principal component and the inner paper and LDPE layers as reinforcement and lining. It also noted that the presence of LDPE as an inner liner for a specific use did not make LDPE the essential character of the goods. On that basis, the appellant failed to establish eligibility for the claimed exemption, and the contrary view of another Collector (Appeals) was not treated as binding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>