<?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>2000 (11) TMI 644 - cegat,  mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96279</link>
    <description>Stiffened fabric was held not to fall under Heading 59.01 where the earlier ruling in the appellant&#039;s own case drew the line between permanent stiffness and temporary stiffness. The applicable principle was that only fabrics with permanent stiffness attracted Heading 59.01, while temporary stiffness did not. On that basis, the goods were treated as classifiable under Heading 52.06 and the appellant&#039;s classification claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:40:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 644 - cegat,  mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96279</link>
      <description>Stiffened fabric was held not to fall under Heading 59.01 where the earlier ruling in the appellant&#039;s own case drew the line between permanent stiffness and temporary stiffness. The applicable principle was that only fabrics with permanent stiffness attracted Heading 59.01, while temporary stiffness did not. On that basis, the goods were treated as classifiable under Heading 52.06 and the appellant&#039;s classification claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>