https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93153 Glaze frit was treated as ceramic glazed frit rather than glass frit because the test report, Indian Standard glossary, and trade notice did not establish a recognised trade or technical meaning supporting the specific glass frit description. In tariff classification, the specific entry could not be applied where the goods did not squarely answer that description, so the residuary sub-heading was preferred. The product was therefore classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 and not under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10, consistent with the classification adopted by the Commissioner. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:24:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93153 Glaze frit was treated as ceramic glazed frit rather than glass frit because the test report, Indian Standard glossary, and trade notice did not establish a recognised trade or technical meaning supporting the specific glass frit description. In tariff classification, the specific entry could not be applied where the goods did not squarely answer that description, so the residuary sub-heading was preferred. The product was therefore classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 and not under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10, consistent with the classification adopted by the Commissioner. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93153