<?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>1997 (3) TMI 96 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44481</link>
    <description>Bubble gum was treated as a commercially distinct product from chewing gum for tariff classification purposes. Although chewing gum was expressly covered under Item IA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, bubble gum was not mentioned in that entry. On that basis, the product could not be brought within the specific tariff item merely because it was a form of gum, and the residuary Item 68 was the appropriate classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 96 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44481</link>
      <description>Bubble gum was treated as a commercially distinct product from chewing gum for tariff classification purposes. Although chewing gum was expressly covered under Item IA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, bubble gum was not mentioned in that entry. On that basis, the product could not be brought within the specific tariff item merely because it was a form of gum, and the residuary Item 68 was the appropriate classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>