<?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>2009 (4) TMI 697 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126311</link>
    <description>Printed labels and printed wrappers were treated as commercially known labels, with the printing serving a substantive product-identifying function rather than a merely incidental one. Heading 4821.00 was read as covering labels of all kinds, and that description supported the classification adopted by the lower authorities. The classification under CETA sub-heading 4821.00 was upheld in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 697 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126311</link>
      <description>Printed labels and printed wrappers were treated as commercially known labels, with the printing serving a substantive product-identifying function rather than a merely incidental one. Heading 4821.00 was read as covering labels of all kinds, and that description supported the classification adopted by the lower authorities. The classification under CETA sub-heading 4821.00 was upheld in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>