https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89999 Additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was rejected because the expert opinions had been obtained without the Revenue's knowledge, the identity of the goods sent for opinion was unclear, and the supporting correspondence was not on record. On classification, the goods were manufactured by placing glass fibre in a mould and impregnating it with polyester resin, producing composite articles. The Revenue failed to establish that the goods were multilayer plastic laminated tubes falling under Notification No. 53/88-C.E.; they were therefore covered by the nil-rate entry. The impugned order was sustained. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:07:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89999 Additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was rejected because the expert opinions had been obtained without the Revenue's knowledge, the identity of the goods sent for opinion was unclear, and the supporting correspondence was not on record. On classification, the goods were manufactured by placing glass fibre in a mould and impregnating it with polyester resin, producing composite articles. The Revenue failed to establish that the goods were multilayer plastic laminated tubes falling under Notification No. 53/88-C.E.; they were therefore covered by the nil-rate entry. The impugned order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89999