<?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>1998 (1) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87722</link>
    <description>Printing on plastic films that conveys product description, brand particulars, batch number, weight and manufacturing date is commercially significant rather than merely decorative or incidental. Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 39 applies only where printing is incidental to the goods&#039; primary use. Where printed information contributes substantively to commercial identity and assists buyers in purchasing decisions, the relevant section note prevails and classification follows the tariff entry for printed articles under Chapter 49 rather than the unprinted plastic base material. The departmental appeal failed because the printing was primary in nature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:16:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87722</link>
      <description>Printing on plastic films that conveys product description, brand particulars, batch number, weight and manufacturing date is commercially significant rather than merely decorative or incidental. Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 39 applies only where printing is incidental to the goods&#039; primary use. Where printed information contributes substantively to commercial identity and assists buyers in purchasing decisions, the relevant section note prevails and classification follows the tariff entry for printed articles under Chapter 49 rather than the unprinted plastic base material. The departmental appeal failed because the printing was primary in nature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>