<?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 544 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96054</link>
    <description>The product &#039;bituminous black&#039; was classifiable as bituminous material under heading 27.15 because chemical testing showed it to be a paste of bituminous material, and the record did not show fillers, film-forming agents, or other constituents that would make it paint or varnish. Its ability to leave a protective surface on application was not enough to shift it to heading 3210.90, and the Explanatory Notes supported inclusion of bitumen-based cut-backs under heading 27.15.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:23:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 544 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96054</link>
      <description>The product &#039;bituminous black&#039; was classifiable as bituminous material under heading 27.15 because chemical testing showed it to be a paste of bituminous material, and the record did not show fillers, film-forming agents, or other constituents that would make it paint or varnish. Its ability to leave a protective surface on application was not enough to shift it to heading 3210.90, and the Explanatory Notes supported inclusion of bitumen-based cut-backs under heading 27.15.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>