<?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>1999 (6) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91467</link>
    <description>Printed sample folders whose essential function was to contain fabric samples were not treated as products of the printing industry merely because they bore printed matter. The decisive test was their dominant functional use as containers, with printing held incidental to that use. On that basis, the folders were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act rather than Chapter 49.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:24:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 84 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91467</link>
      <description>Printed sample folders whose essential function was to contain fabric samples were not treated as products of the printing industry merely because they bore printed matter. The decisive test was their dominant functional use as containers, with printing held incidental to that use. On that basis, the folders were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act rather than Chapter 49.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>