https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92449 Tarpaulin cloth classification turned on whether the goods fell under Heading 52.07 or Heading 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff, with the legal test focusing on whether waterproofing or impregnation produced a visible layer on the fabric surface under Chapter Note 5(a). The chemical examiner reported that the sample was base cotton fabric heavily impregnated with paraffin wax, earthy matter and inorganic compounds, with impregnation visible to the naked eye, but the appellate authority rejected that report on the basis of no visible layer formation. Because the expert evidence was not properly correlated with the governing tariff test, the classification question was remanded for de novo consideration and a fresh speaking order. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:46:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92449 Tarpaulin cloth classification turned on whether the goods fell under Heading 52.07 or Heading 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff, with the legal test focusing on whether waterproofing or impregnation produced a visible layer on the fabric surface under Chapter Note 5(a). The chemical examiner reported that the sample was base cotton fabric heavily impregnated with paraffin wax, earthy matter and inorganic compounds, with impregnation visible to the naked eye, but the appellate authority rejected that report on the basis of no visible layer formation. Because the expert evidence was not properly correlated with the governing tariff test, the classification question was remanded for de novo consideration and a fresh speaking order. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92449