https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42572 The classification of rubber-sheeting depended on its true character: the High Court treated the products as cotton or man-made fabrics that had been waterproofed and rubberised, rather than goods whose trade identity was rubber. On that basis, Tariff Item 19(1)(b) applied and Tariff Item 16A(2) did not. The Court also noted that the earlier exemption position had been displaced by a later notification and by retrospective validation under the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982, so the claimed exemption under Tariff Item 16A could not be sustained. The refund claims were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:38:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42572 The classification of rubber-sheeting depended on its true character: the High Court treated the products as cotton or man-made fabrics that had been waterproofed and rubberised, rather than goods whose trade identity was rubber. On that basis, Tariff Item 19(1)(b) applied and Tariff Item 16A(2) did not. The Court also noted that the earlier exemption position had been displaced by a later notification and by retrospective validation under the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982, so the claimed exemption under Tariff Item 16A could not be sustained. The refund claims were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42572