<?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>1985 (3) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41569</link>
    <description>PVC coated periglass sleevings and silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings were held not to be textile articles under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff because, where the tariff does not define &quot;textile,&quot; the entry must be construed in its ordinary commercial sense rather than a technical one. On that test, glass fibre sleeving may be described as textile material technologically, but it is not understood as textile in common trade usage. The departmental classification was open to judicial correction because it rested on an erroneous interpretation of the tariff expression, and the remand for fresh classification under the proper entry was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:00:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41569</link>
      <description>PVC coated periglass sleevings and silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings were held not to be textile articles under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff because, where the tariff does not define &quot;textile,&quot; the entry must be construed in its ordinary commercial sense rather than a technical one. On that test, glass fibre sleeving may be described as textile material technologically, but it is not understood as textile in common trade usage. The departmental classification was open to judicial correction because it rested on an erroneous interpretation of the tariff expression, and the remand for fresh classification under the proper entry was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>