<?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>1996 (3) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85081</link>
    <description>Asbestos cement pipes were treated as specifically covered by Tariff Item 23C, because a product expressly named in a tariff entry cannot be shifted to the residuary item merely on the basis of the predominance of constituent material. The technical description of the pipes supported the specific entry, so Tariff Item 68 did not apply and the classification adopted by the authorities below was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:32:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85081</link>
      <description>Asbestos cement pipes were treated as specifically covered by Tariff Item 23C, because a product expressly named in a tariff entry cannot be shifted to the residuary item merely on the basis of the predominance of constituent material. The technical description of the pipes supported the specific entry, so Tariff Item 68 did not apply and the classification adopted by the authorities below was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>