<?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>1982 (6) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41243</link>
    <description>Where a tariff entry classifies goods by scientific and chemical description, the product is assessed by its technical identity rather than by trade nomenclature alone. Polyester chips of textile grade were treated as a saturated polyester and polycondensation product falling within Item 15A, because the entry covered artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. Their market description as fibre grade chips, or their alleged unsuitability for moulding or film-making, did not take them outside the levy. On the refund aspect, any claim would in principle be limited by limitation, while unjust enrichment was not treated as a complete bar.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 16:31:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41243</link>
      <description>Where a tariff entry classifies goods by scientific and chemical description, the product is assessed by its technical identity rather than by trade nomenclature alone. Polyester chips of textile grade were treated as a saturated polyester and polycondensation product falling within Item 15A, because the entry covered artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. Their market description as fibre grade chips, or their alleged unsuitability for moulding or film-making, did not take them outside the levy. On the refund aspect, any claim would in principle be limited by limitation, while unjust enrichment was not treated as a complete bar.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>