<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1046 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),  KANPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153783</link>
    <description>Printed articles such as receipts, invoices, statements, attendance sheets and admission cards were treated as specialised documents with fiduciary value exceeding their intrinsic stationery value, so Chapter 48 was held inapplicable and classification was shifted to Chapter 49, specifically heading 4907/49070090. The tariff analysis relied on Chapter Note 4(c) and the CBEC circular to distinguish such goods from ordinary stationery. The related refund claim for duty already paid was nevertheless rejected because the record did not adequately establish which goods were cleared during the relevant period or otherwise prove refund entitlement on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2019 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1046 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),  KANPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153783</link>
      <description>Printed articles such as receipts, invoices, statements, attendance sheets and admission cards were treated as specialised documents with fiduciary value exceeding their intrinsic stationery value, so Chapter 48 was held inapplicable and classification was shifted to Chapter 49, specifically heading 4907/49070090. The tariff analysis relied on Chapter Note 4(c) and the CBEC circular to distinguish such goods from ordinary stationery. The related refund claim for duty already paid was nevertheless rejected because the record did not adequately establish which goods were cleared during the relevant period or otherwise prove refund entitlement on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>