<?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 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50845</link>
    <description>Classification of canvas belting duck, filter cloth, industrial fabrics and C.T.C. fabrics under Heading 59.09 of the Central Excise Tariff could not rest merely on their suitability for industrial use. The show cause notices did not allege that the fabrics were cut to size, and the objection based on running length did not survive on the facts. As a result, the tariff entry invoked for the demand was held not attracted, and the classification adopted on that basis was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:37:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50845</link>
      <description>Classification of canvas belting duck, filter cloth, industrial fabrics and C.T.C. fabrics under Heading 59.09 of the Central Excise Tariff could not rest merely on their suitability for industrial use. The show cause notices did not allege that the fabrics were cut to size, and the objection based on running length did not survive on the facts. As a result, the tariff entry invoked for the demand was held not attracted, and the classification adopted on that basis was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>