<?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 (9) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89368</link>
    <description>Pyroclean 17, a heterogeneous mixture of alkalies, phosphates and silicates, was treated as a heavy duty alkaline cleaner whose principal function was removal of oil, dirt and soil from metal surfaces. On that basis, it was classifiable as a cleaning preparation under sub-heading 3402.90. The claim that it fell outside Heading 34.02 because of a subsidiary surface-active function was not supported by the record or product literature, and the alternative contention that it was an anti-rust preparation also failed for want of evidence. The residual classification under sub-heading 3823.00 was therefore rejected and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:53:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89368</link>
      <description>Pyroclean 17, a heterogeneous mixture of alkalies, phosphates and silicates, was treated as a heavy duty alkaline cleaner whose principal function was removal of oil, dirt and soil from metal surfaces. On that basis, it was classifiable as a cleaning preparation under sub-heading 3402.90. The claim that it fell outside Heading 34.02 because of a subsidiary surface-active function was not supported by the record or product literature, and the alternative contention that it was an anti-rust preparation also failed for want of evidence. The residual classification under sub-heading 3823.00 was therefore rejected and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>