https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84013 The appeal was rejected, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the boxes were printed and did not qualify for the exemption, based on the dictionary definition of printing and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claim of trade parlance. The Vice President concurred with the decision, emphasizing the appellants' failure to prove the material was commercially considered unprinted and the insufficiency of letters from customers without additional evidence. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:36:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84013 The appeal was rejected, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the boxes were printed and did not qualify for the exemption, based on the dictionary definition of printing and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claim of trade parlance. The Vice President concurred with the decision, emphasizing the appellants' failure to prove the material was commercially considered unprinted and the insufficiency of letters from customers without additional evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84013