<?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>1983 (10) TMI 235 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166637</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of spider cloth turned on the accepted meaning of &quot;impregnated fabrics&quot; under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Applying the textile dictionary meaning relied on by the assessee, the Tribunal treated impregnated fabric as material whose interstices are completely filled through the thickness of the cloth. The laboratory report showed open interstices and free passage of water, so the cloth did not meet that description and could not be classified under Item 19-III on that basis. The alternative suggestion that it was a coated fabric was not examined because it had not been raised before the lower authorities. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 235 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166637</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of spider cloth turned on the accepted meaning of &quot;impregnated fabrics&quot; under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Applying the textile dictionary meaning relied on by the assessee, the Tribunal treated impregnated fabric as material whose interstices are completely filled through the thickness of the cloth. The laboratory report showed open interstices and free passage of water, so the cloth did not meet that description and could not be classified under Item 19-III on that basis. The alternative suggestion that it was a coated fabric was not examined because it had not been raised before the lower authorities. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>