https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167407 Rubberised cotton fabric known as Friction Cloth was held outside Tariff Item 19(1)(b) because cotton did not predominate by weight and the special 40% test in that item did not apply to a cotton fabric further rubberised on both sides. The product consisted of 47.1% cotton and 52.9% rubber compound, and the chemical composition, departmental instructions, and tariff advices supported treatment as a rubber product rather than a cotton fabric. The cited precedents were distinguished on their facts. The goods were therefore correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 16A(2) in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:38:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167407 Rubberised cotton fabric known as Friction Cloth was held outside Tariff Item 19(1)(b) because cotton did not predominate by weight and the special 40% test in that item did not apply to a cotton fabric further rubberised on both sides. The product consisted of 47.1% cotton and 52.9% rubber compound, and the chemical composition, departmental instructions, and tariff advices supported treatment as a rubber product rather than a cotton fabric. The cited precedents were distinguished on their facts. The goods were therefore correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 16A(2) in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167407