<?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>2004 (4) TMI 196 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52973</link>
    <description>Textile processing preparations were classified under Heading 3809 where test reports and composition showed the goods were specially formulated for binding, fixing, emulsifying and softening in textile and fabric processing, and not as acrylic polymers in primary form under Heading 3906. The HSN notes were applied as the governing aid, with classification determined by the heading terms and relative notes rather than by a residual approach. The corrigendum also removed the jurisdictional objection to the Assistant Collector, so no separate interference survived on that ground. The classification under Heading 3809 was upheld and the duty demand based on Heading 3906 failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:46:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 196 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52973</link>
      <description>Textile processing preparations were classified under Heading 3809 where test reports and composition showed the goods were specially formulated for binding, fixing, emulsifying and softening in textile and fabric processing, and not as acrylic polymers in primary form under Heading 3906. The HSN notes were applied as the governing aid, with classification determined by the heading terms and relative notes rather than by a residual approach. The corrigendum also removed the jurisdictional objection to the Assistant Collector, so no separate interference survived on that ground. The classification under Heading 3809 was upheld and the duty demand based on Heading 3906 failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>