https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167242 The Tribunal determined that Hypalon 40 did not qualify as synthetic rubber under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but classified it as a polymerization product. However, for the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, it was deemed to fall under the category of Synthetic Rubber for the purpose of additional duty of customs. The Tribunal upheld the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and directed the classification as Synthetic Rubber under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for refunding excess additional duty collected. en-us Mon, 31 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:52:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167242 The Tribunal determined that Hypalon 40 did not qualify as synthetic rubber under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but classified it as a polymerization product. However, for the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, it was deemed to fall under the category of Synthetic Rubber for the purpose of additional duty of customs. The Tribunal upheld the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and directed the classification as Synthetic Rubber under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for refunding excess additional duty collected. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 31 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167242