<?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 (11) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41265</link>
    <description>Excise classification of flocked fabrics turned on whether the manufacturing process created a marketable product at the intermediate coated stage and whether the final goods answered the tariff description of impregnated, coated or laminated fabric. The court held that flocking was an integrated process, the coated stage was not independently marketable, and duty could not be levied on that stage. On that basis, the fabrics fell under Tariff Item 19-I rather than Tariff Item 19-III, and the higher levy based on the later classification could not be sustained. Excess duty recovered on the wrong classification was therefore refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:12:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (11) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41265</link>
      <description>Excise classification of flocked fabrics turned on whether the manufacturing process created a marketable product at the intermediate coated stage and whether the final goods answered the tariff description of impregnated, coated or laminated fabric. The court held that flocking was an integrated process, the coated stage was not independently marketable, and duty could not be levied on that stage. On that basis, the fabrics fell under Tariff Item 19-I rather than Tariff Item 19-III, and the higher levy based on the later classification could not be sustained. Excess duty recovered on the wrong classification was therefore refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>