<?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>1992 (6) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43393</link>
    <description>P.V.C. leather cloth produced by coating cotton fabric with P.V.C. paste was treated as a distinct commercial product whose identity as cotton fabric was lost, so it fell outside Tariff Item 19 and was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as a residuary plastic article. On that footing, Notification No. 182/82 was available because the dispute below concerned only classification, and a new factual objection to exemption could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The refund claim based on duty paid under mistake of law was sustained, with interest treated as discretionary, while the amended refund provision did not defeat entitlement at the stage considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:43:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43393</link>
      <description>P.V.C. leather cloth produced by coating cotton fabric with P.V.C. paste was treated as a distinct commercial product whose identity as cotton fabric was lost, so it fell outside Tariff Item 19 and was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as a residuary plastic article. On that footing, Notification No. 182/82 was available because the dispute below concerned only classification, and a new factual objection to exemption could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The refund claim based on duty paid under mistake of law was sustained, with interest treated as discretionary, while the amended refund provision did not defeat entitlement at the stage considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>