<?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>1989 (3) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74581</link>
    <description>Open-ended bulb sleeves and tube light sleeves used for packing were not treated as printed boxes or printed cartons, because the exemption exception under Notification No. 66/82 applied only to those specified containers and the sleeves did not answer their ordinary meaning. The Tribunal also noted that non-filing of the classification list and alleged suppression could justify invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty on the procedural facts, particularly under the self-removal procedure and captive use context. The substantive classification issue was decided in favour of exemption, while the suppression-based limitation objection was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:01:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74581</link>
      <description>Open-ended bulb sleeves and tube light sleeves used for packing were not treated as printed boxes or printed cartons, because the exemption exception under Notification No. 66/82 applied only to those specified containers and the sleeves did not answer their ordinary meaning. The Tribunal also noted that non-filing of the classification list and alleged suppression could justify invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty on the procedural facts, particularly under the self-removal procedure and captive use context. The substantive classification issue was decided in favour of exemption, while the suppression-based limitation objection was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>