<?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>2000 (7) TMI 432 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93931</link>
    <description>Writing and printing paper remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 48/91-C.E. because the record did not show any change in the assessee&#039;s manufacturing process or any failure to satisfy the notification&#039;s conditions. The Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods had become newsprint was not accepted, as Note 3 to Chapter 48 did not assist on the facts and did not displace the exemption claim. Note 7 to Chapter 48, providing that paper falling under more than one heading is classified under the heading occurring last in numerical order, also supported the assessee&#039;s classification. The exemption was therefore available and the classification objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:19:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 432 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93931</link>
      <description>Writing and printing paper remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 48/91-C.E. because the record did not show any change in the assessee&#039;s manufacturing process or any failure to satisfy the notification&#039;s conditions. The Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods had become newsprint was not accepted, as Note 3 to Chapter 48 did not assist on the facts and did not displace the exemption claim. Note 7 to Chapter 48, providing that paper falling under more than one heading is classified under the heading occurring last in numerical order, also supported the assessee&#039;s classification. The exemption was therefore available and the classification objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>