<?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>2001 (1) TMI 323 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95370</link>
    <description>Eligibility for exemption turned on whether &quot;Lomafinish 45&quot; was a textile lubricating preparation. The product was analysed as mainly an organic surface-active agent with a small quantity of mineral oil, and the exemption entry was noted to cover lubricating preparations used for oil and grease treatment of textiles and leather. The tariff note also referred to water-dispersible textile lubricating preparations containing surface-active agents, mineral oils and other chemicals. The appellate reasoning was found internally inconsistent because it accepted the product as a lubricating preparation yet treated it as one used for oil treatment without clear basis. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination of composition, use and notification eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 323 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95370</link>
      <description>Eligibility for exemption turned on whether &quot;Lomafinish 45&quot; was a textile lubricating preparation. The product was analysed as mainly an organic surface-active agent with a small quantity of mineral oil, and the exemption entry was noted to cover lubricating preparations used for oil and grease treatment of textiles and leather. The tariff note also referred to water-dispersible textile lubricating preparations containing surface-active agents, mineral oils and other chemicals. The appellate reasoning was found internally inconsistent because it accepted the product as a lubricating preparation yet treated it as one used for oil treatment without clear basis. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination of composition, use and notification eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>