<?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>2001 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50625</link>
    <description>Fabric classification under Heading 59.01 required durable or permanent stiffness, not merely temporary stiffness. Because the record did not show coating with gum or amylaceous substances and indicated that the fabric lost stiffness on washing, the goods could not be treated as stiffened fabric under Heading 59.01. They were therefore classifiable as cotton fabric under Heading 52.06, and the demand and penalty founded on Heading 59.01 could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:45:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50625</link>
      <description>Fabric classification under Heading 59.01 required durable or permanent stiffness, not merely temporary stiffness. Because the record did not show coating with gum or amylaceous substances and indicated that the fabric lost stiffness on washing, the goods could not be treated as stiffened fabric under Heading 59.01. They were therefore classifiable as cotton fabric under Heading 52.06, and the demand and penalty founded on Heading 59.01 could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>