<?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>1996 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84953</link>
    <description>Composite containers with printed labels and metal inserts were examined for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The key question was whether they were cartons, boxes or cases covered by Heading 4818.13, or whether they fell within the residuary Heading 4818.19. The presence of metal inserts meant they were not goods made wholly of paper or paperboard, and no evidence established that the articles were in substance cartons, boxes or cases. Accordingly, the specific printed-container heading was inapplicable and the residuary entry applied. The departmental appeal failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification under Heading 4818.19 was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:31:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84953</link>
      <description>Composite containers with printed labels and metal inserts were examined for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The key question was whether they were cartons, boxes or cases covered by Heading 4818.13, or whether they fell within the residuary Heading 4818.19. The presence of metal inserts meant they were not goods made wholly of paper or paperboard, and no evidence established that the articles were in substance cartons, boxes or cases. Accordingly, the specific printed-container heading was inapplicable and the residuary entry applied. The departmental appeal failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification under Heading 4818.19 was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>