<?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>1984 (1) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166844</link>
    <description>Packing kraft hardsized was classifiable as paper board under Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff because its structure consisted of three layers of the same basic furnish and the bitumen used was only a small sizing ingredient in the middle layer. The presence of that sizing did not move the product to the residuary Item 17(4), since residuary classification applies only when a product does not fit a specific description. The absence of a market description as pulp board was not decisive, and the lower authorities&#039; reasoning was insufficient. The product therefore fell within Item 17(3) and not Item 17(4), in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 306 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166844</link>
      <description>Packing kraft hardsized was classifiable as paper board under Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff because its structure consisted of three layers of the same basic furnish and the bitumen used was only a small sizing ingredient in the middle layer. The presence of that sizing did not move the product to the residuary Item 17(4), since residuary classification applies only when a product does not fit a specific description. The absence of a market description as pulp board was not decisive, and the lower authorities&#039; reasoning was insufficient. The product therefore fell within Item 17(3) and not Item 17(4), in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>