https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40873 Beta Naphthol was held not to answer the description of goods used in an actual dyeing process, because the material showed it was mainly used as a dye intermediate and had been treated under item 30(1)(c) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The authorities' own reliance on a substantial-use approach in comparable classifications, together with later legislative treatment of Beta Naphthol as a dye intermediate, supported exclusion from item 14D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The refusal to produce the relevant collectors' conference records justified an adverse inference against the respondents, and the countervailing duty levy was held illegal and unsustainable. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 May 2010 13:56:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40873 Beta Naphthol was held not to answer the description of goods used in an actual dyeing process, because the material showed it was mainly used as a dye intermediate and had been treated under item 30(1)(c) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The authorities' own reliance on a substantial-use approach in comparable classifications, together with later legislative treatment of Beta Naphthol as a dye intermediate, supported exclusion from item 14D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The refusal to produce the relevant collectors' conference records justified an adverse inference against the respondents, and the countervailing duty levy was held illegal and unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40873