<?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 (11) TMI 299 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166788</link>
    <description>PVC mining conveyor belting was held not to qualify as man-made fabrics under Item 22(3) because classification depended on the identity of the finished article as marketed and on whether it answered the ordinary trade meaning of &quot;fabric&quot;. Although textile material was embedded in the product, its thick, stiff structure and substantial PVC content meant it lacked the normal characteristics of fabric and could not be treated as an impregnated, coated, or laminated fabric. The goods were therefore correctly classifiable under the residuary Item 68, the demand was to be reworked on that basis, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:53:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 299 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166788</link>
      <description>PVC mining conveyor belting was held not to qualify as man-made fabrics under Item 22(3) because classification depended on the identity of the finished article as marketed and on whether it answered the ordinary trade meaning of &quot;fabric&quot;. Although textile material was embedded in the product, its thick, stiff structure and substantial PVC content meant it lacked the normal characteristics of fabric and could not be treated as an impregnated, coated, or laminated fabric. The goods were therefore correctly classifiable under the residuary Item 68, the demand was to be reworked on that basis, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>