<?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>1988 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74024</link>
    <description>Under Notification No. 25/84-CE, broke consumed within the factory was treated as manufacturing waste and not as paper or paper board in trade, so it was excluded from clearance computation for exemption purposes. Art paper and chromo paper were held ineligible because the notification expressly excluded coated paper, and that exclusion was applied according to its clear wording. Ledger paper above 85 GSM was classified as writing and printing paper based on its description and use, so excise duty applied on that basis. Art board and chromo board were held eligible for exemption because the proviso excluded coated paper but did not extend to coated board, and the notification was not expanded by interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:00:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74024</link>
      <description>Under Notification No. 25/84-CE, broke consumed within the factory was treated as manufacturing waste and not as paper or paper board in trade, so it was excluded from clearance computation for exemption purposes. Art paper and chromo paper were held ineligible because the notification expressly excluded coated paper, and that exclusion was applied according to its clear wording. Ledger paper above 85 GSM was classified as writing and printing paper based on its description and use, so excise duty applied on that basis. Art board and chromo board were held eligible for exemption because the proviso excluded coated paper but did not extend to coated board, and the notification was not expanded by interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>