<?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>2011 (2) TMI 549 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206623</link>
    <description>Aluminium composite panels consisting of aluminium sheets and polyethylene layers were analysed for tariff classification by their essential character under Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule. Their use as external building panels and the product literature showed that key functional attributes such as thermal resistance, fire resistance, sound transmission control and durability were primarily attributable to the aluminium component, so a mechanical comparison of plastic content was rejected. Classification under Heading 39.20 was therefore held incorrect, and the goods were to be classified by reference to aluminium.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 549 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206623</link>
      <description>Aluminium composite panels consisting of aluminium sheets and polyethylene layers were analysed for tariff classification by their essential character under Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule. Their use as external building panels and the product literature showed that key functional attributes such as thermal resistance, fire resistance, sound transmission control and durability were primarily attributable to the aluminium component, so a mechanical comparison of plastic content was rejected. Classification under Heading 39.20 was therefore held incorrect, and the goods were to be classified by reference to aluminium.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>