<?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 (12) TMI 508 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96298</link>
    <description>Glossy aluminium sheets laminated with kraft paper and resin were held not classifiable under the plastics heading on an essential-character basis. The product combined aluminium, paper and resin, and each constituent contributed to its intended use: the aluminium surface served the decorative function, while paper and resin supplied hardness, rigidity and lamination. Because the plastics chapter notes did not extend to a metal-plastic combination, and the commodity did not derive its essential character solely from one material, classification had to be determined under the rule for equally applicable headings. The classification adopted under the latter heading was upheld, and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:03:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 508 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96298</link>
      <description>Glossy aluminium sheets laminated with kraft paper and resin were held not classifiable under the plastics heading on an essential-character basis. The product combined aluminium, paper and resin, and each constituent contributed to its intended use: the aluminium surface served the decorative function, while paper and resin supplied hardness, rigidity and lamination. Because the plastics chapter notes did not extend to a metal-plastic combination, and the commodity did not derive its essential character solely from one material, classification had to be determined under the rule for equally applicable headings. The classification adopted under the latter heading was upheld, and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>