<?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>2005 (3) TMI 664 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116171</link>
    <description>The duty demand imposed on the appellant for online lottery receipt and other manufactured articles was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal. The appellant&#039;s core activity of printing classified their products under Chapter 49 as printed products exempt from duty. The Tribunal recognized the appellant&#039;s printing activities, including the use of thermal paper, and stayed the demands while waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate classification and understanding of manufacturing processes in determining duty liabilities, ultimately favoring the appellant based on their printing operations and product classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:22:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 664 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116171</link>
      <description>The duty demand imposed on the appellant for online lottery receipt and other manufactured articles was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal. The appellant&#039;s core activity of printing classified their products under Chapter 49 as printed products exempt from duty. The Tribunal recognized the appellant&#039;s printing activities, including the use of thermal paper, and stayed the demands while waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate classification and understanding of manufacturing processes in determining duty liabilities, ultimately favoring the appellant based on their printing operations and product classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>