<?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>2007 (9) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2162</link>
    <description>Classification of a latex-based adhesive depends on its composition rather than its end use. Where the product retained more than 90% rubber content and preserved the essential character of rubber as a raw material, Note 5(b) to Chapter 40 supported classification under tariff heading 40.01 despite sale as an adhesive to footwear manufacturers. The product was therefore correctly classified under heading 40.01 and not under heading 35.06.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2162</link>
      <description>Classification of a latex-based adhesive depends on its composition rather than its end use. Where the product retained more than 90% rubber content and preserved the essential character of rubber as a raw material, Note 5(b) to Chapter 40 supported classification under tariff heading 40.01 despite sale as an adhesive to footwear manufacturers. The product was therefore correctly classified under heading 40.01 and not under heading 35.06.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>