<?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>1997 (7) TMI 330 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87202</link>
    <description>Polythene packets were treated as unit containers under the tariff note where each packet was consistently sold as containing a predetermined, uniform quantity of 1 kg. The absence of any statement of weight on the packet or inside it was not decisive, because the tariff note did not require the container itself to display the quantity. On that basis, the goods were classifiable under Heading 20.01, sub-heading 10, rather than the residuary sub-heading 2001.90.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 13:50:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 330 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87202</link>
      <description>Polythene packets were treated as unit containers under the tariff note where each packet was consistently sold as containing a predetermined, uniform quantity of 1 kg. The absence of any statement of weight on the packet or inside it was not decisive, because the tariff note did not require the container itself to display the quantity. On that basis, the goods were classifiable under Heading 20.01, sub-heading 10, rather than the residuary sub-heading 2001.90.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>