<?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 (7) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50840</link>
    <description>Coatolex was held classifiable as latex under Chapter 40 rather than as a prepared adhesive under Heading 3506, because mere sale or description as an adhesive was insufficient to fix classification. The decisive factor was whether processing at the assessee&#039;s premises had actually increased the product&#039;s bonding strength, and there was no evidence of such change. Chapter 40 Note 5 was applied, with no material showing exclusion under Note 5(a) and minor substances being disregarded under Note 5(b) for classification under Heading 40.01. The Commissioner&#039;s classification and related exemption position were therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50840</link>
      <description>Coatolex was held classifiable as latex under Chapter 40 rather than as a prepared adhesive under Heading 3506, because mere sale or description as an adhesive was insufficient to fix classification. The decisive factor was whether processing at the assessee&#039;s premises had actually increased the product&#039;s bonding strength, and there was no evidence of such change. Chapter 40 Note 5 was applied, with no material showing exclusion under Note 5(a) and minor substances being disregarded under Note 5(b) for classification under Heading 40.01. The Commissioner&#039;s classification and related exemption position were therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>