<?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 (5) TMI 746 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102231</link>
    <description>Coated fabrics classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 5903.19 were held to qualify for Notification No. 63/87-C.E. even though the base fabrics used in manufacture were classified under Chapter 60. The applicable principle, drawn from the Larger Bench decision in Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd., was that where the finished product falls under 5903.19 and the base fabric remains cotton, duty is determined by the duty on the base fabric under Chapter 52 together with the notification rate, irrespective of the classification of the base fabrics used. On that binding view, denial of the notification benefit was not sustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:39:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 746 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102231</link>
      <description>Coated fabrics classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 5903.19 were held to qualify for Notification No. 63/87-C.E. even though the base fabrics used in manufacture were classified under Chapter 60. The applicable principle, drawn from the Larger Bench decision in Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd., was that where the finished product falls under 5903.19 and the base fabric remains cotton, duty is determined by the duty on the base fabric under Chapter 52 together with the notification rate, irrespective of the classification of the base fabrics used. On that binding view, denial of the notification benefit was not sustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>