<?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>2000 (1) TMI 107 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50008</link>
    <description>Tarpaulin cloth made from grey cotton fabric, where the wax-based waterproofing left the warp and weft visible to the naked eye, remained classifiable as waterproofed cotton fabric under Chapter 52, Heading 52.06. The product was excluded from Chapter 59, Heading 59.06 because Section Note 5 applies only where impregnation, coating or covering is visibly apparent. On that basis, the cotton-fabric classification prevailed and the consequential exemption benefit followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2019 13:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 107 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50008</link>
      <description>Tarpaulin cloth made from grey cotton fabric, where the wax-based waterproofing left the warp and weft visible to the naked eye, remained classifiable as waterproofed cotton fabric under Chapter 52, Heading 52.06. The product was excluded from Chapter 59, Heading 59.06 because Section Note 5 applies only where impregnation, coating or covering is visibly apparent. On that basis, the cotton-fabric classification prevailed and the consequential exemption benefit followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>