<?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>2005 (2) TMI 567 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114971</link>
    <description>100% polyester curtain fabric was held classifiable under Heading 60.02 as knitted fabric, because the Textile Committee gave a clear expert opinion that it was warp knitted and the Revenue produced no contrary technical evidence. The adjudicating authority&#039;s personal observations could not override that expert finding. Heading 58.04 expressly excludes woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, so goods established to be knitted could not fall within that heading. Authorities cited by the Revenue were distinguishable because they involved no material proving the goods were knitted fabric. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee&#039;s classification claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 567 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114971</link>
      <description>100% polyester curtain fabric was held classifiable under Heading 60.02 as knitted fabric, because the Textile Committee gave a clear expert opinion that it was warp knitted and the Revenue produced no contrary technical evidence. The adjudicating authority&#039;s personal observations could not override that expert finding. Heading 58.04 expressly excludes woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, so goods established to be knitted could not fall within that heading. Authorities cited by the Revenue were distinguishable because they involved no material proving the goods were knitted fabric. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee&#039;s classification claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>