<?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>1984 (10) TMI 54 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48668</link>
    <description>Composite synthetic resin bonded paper cylinders, supplied to exact transformer sizes and intended to perform an insulating function, were classified under the specific heading for insulating fittings for electrical equipment rather than under the general paper heading or the plastics heading. The Department failed to prove that their essential character was derived from synthetic resin, so the plastics classification was rejected. For countervailing duty, the cylinders were treated as composite articles not answering the paper heading and were placed under the residuary item then applicable, which carried exemption; the refund of countervailing duty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2023 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 54 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48668</link>
      <description>Composite synthetic resin bonded paper cylinders, supplied to exact transformer sizes and intended to perform an insulating function, were classified under the specific heading for insulating fittings for electrical equipment rather than under the general paper heading or the plastics heading. The Department failed to prove that their essential character was derived from synthetic resin, so the plastics classification was rejected. For countervailing duty, the cylinders were treated as composite articles not answering the paper heading and were placed under the residuary item then applicable, which carried exemption; the refund of countervailing duty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>