<?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>2003 (11) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46710</link>
    <description>Classification of tyre cord warp sheets dipped in Resorcinol Formal Dehyde Latex Solution turned on whether they answered the specific description of &quot;man-made fabric&quot; under Tariff Item 22. The Court noted that the entry covered only fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with cellulose derivatives or other artificial plastic materials, or fabrics covered with textile flocks, and the goods were not shown to fall within that language. It rejected reliance on a predominance test alone and held that prior authority had to be read in context. Tariff Item 22 was not attracted on the material before the Court, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46710</link>
      <description>Classification of tyre cord warp sheets dipped in Resorcinol Formal Dehyde Latex Solution turned on whether they answered the specific description of &quot;man-made fabric&quot; under Tariff Item 22. The Court noted that the entry covered only fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with cellulose derivatives or other artificial plastic materials, or fabrics covered with textile flocks, and the goods were not shown to fall within that language. It rejected reliance on a predominance test alone and held that prior authority had to be read in context. Tariff Item 22 was not attracted on the material before the Court, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>