<?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 (6) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89082</link>
    <description>Printed catch covers manufactured by printing, punching, creasing and pasting to form a container for pharmaceutical strips were treated as containers under heading 4819.12, because the evidence supported their character as container goods rather than mere wrappers or printed matter. The contrary description was not supported by sample evidence or material disproving the department&#039;s classification. However, the department did not substantiate the applicability of Notification No. 67/82, as no material was produced to show that the goods were chargeable to duty under that notification. The lower authority&#039;s classification was modified accordingly, while duty liability under the notification was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:47:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89082</link>
      <description>Printed catch covers manufactured by printing, punching, creasing and pasting to form a container for pharmaceutical strips were treated as containers under heading 4819.12, because the evidence supported their character as container goods rather than mere wrappers or printed matter. The contrary description was not supported by sample evidence or material disproving the department&#039;s classification. However, the department did not substantiate the applicability of Notification No. 67/82, as no material was produced to show that the goods were chargeable to duty under that notification. The lower authority&#039;s classification was modified accordingly, while duty liability under the notification was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>