<?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>1998 (3) TMI 384 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89010</link>
    <description>Copper clad wire with a predominantly ferrous core was treated as iron or steel wire coated but not insulated, so it fell within the specific tariff entry for wire rather than the residuary Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The material composition showed that copper was only a coating and did not alter the goods&#039; essential character as wire. Item 68 applied only where no specific entry covered the goods, and there was no basis to resort to it here. The analysis also reflected the principle that coating alone does not displace classification under a specific description when the goods retain their essential character. The assessee therefore succeeded on classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:50:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 384 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89010</link>
      <description>Copper clad wire with a predominantly ferrous core was treated as iron or steel wire coated but not insulated, so it fell within the specific tariff entry for wire rather than the residuary Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The material composition showed that copper was only a coating and did not alter the goods&#039; essential character as wire. Item 68 applied only where no specific entry covered the goods, and there was no basis to resort to it here. The analysis also reflected the principle that coating alone does not displace classification under a specific description when the goods retain their essential character. The assessee therefore succeeded on classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>