<?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>1981 (1) TMI 254 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165678</link>
    <description>Hessian-lined paper made by bonding kraft paper with bitumen and Hessian fabric was examined for classification under competing Central Excise tariff entries. The dispute turned on the character of the product and whether Hessian predominated by weight, with the appellate submissions relying on earlier departmental treatment, chemical examination, and a revisional order treating Hessian-sandwich paper and similar goods as jute products. In view of that revisional guidance, the existing classification was not finally upheld and the original authority was directed to reconsider the matter on the relevant material. The impugned order was vacated and the case remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:45:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 254 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165678</link>
      <description>Hessian-lined paper made by bonding kraft paper with bitumen and Hessian fabric was examined for classification under competing Central Excise tariff entries. The dispute turned on the character of the product and whether Hessian predominated by weight, with the appellate submissions relying on earlier departmental treatment, chemical examination, and a revisional order treating Hessian-sandwich paper and similar goods as jute products. In view of that revisional guidance, the existing classification was not finally upheld and the original authority was directed to reconsider the matter on the relevant material. The impugned order was vacated and the case remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>