<?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 120 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50216</link>
    <description>Aluminium foil laminated on both sides with printed polyester film and transparent HDPE film was treated as aluminium foil for tariff purposes because the product derived its essential character, strength and market value from the foil, while the plastic layers served only as backing, protection and reinforcement. Heading 76.07 specifically covered aluminium foil, whether or not printed or backed with plastics, and the plastics heading did not apply where the article remained characteristically foil. On the same record, remand was unnecessary because the classification issue could be decided on existing evidence. The product was therefore classifiable under Heading 76.07, not Heading 39.20.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:38:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 120 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50216</link>
      <description>Aluminium foil laminated on both sides with printed polyester film and transparent HDPE film was treated as aluminium foil for tariff purposes because the product derived its essential character, strength and market value from the foil, while the plastic layers served only as backing, protection and reinforcement. Heading 76.07 specifically covered aluminium foil, whether or not printed or backed with plastics, and the plastics heading did not apply where the article remained characteristically foil. On the same record, remand was unnecessary because the classification issue could be decided on existing evidence. The product was therefore classifiable under Heading 76.07, not Heading 39.20.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>