<?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 (12) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94333</link>
    <description>Clear tariff definitions govern classification under Chapter 48: wrapping paper made from chemical sulphate pulp was treated as kraft paper because Note 6 requires only that at least 80% of fibre content be obtained by the chemical sulphate or soda process. The Tribunal stated that trade parlance, finish, tear strength, or market description cannot override an express tariff definition, and accordingly classified the goods under Heading 4804.29 rather than Heading 4805.00. It also held that incorrect disclosure of the goods in classification lists justified invocation of the extended limitation period, as the material fact was not properly revealed and the wrong classification was treated as evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:46:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94333</link>
      <description>Clear tariff definitions govern classification under Chapter 48: wrapping paper made from chemical sulphate pulp was treated as kraft paper because Note 6 requires only that at least 80% of fibre content be obtained by the chemical sulphate or soda process. The Tribunal stated that trade parlance, finish, tear strength, or market description cannot override an express tariff definition, and accordingly classified the goods under Heading 4804.29 rather than Heading 4805.00. It also held that incorrect disclosure of the goods in classification lists justified invocation of the extended limitation period, as the material fact was not properly revealed and the wrong classification was treated as evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>