<?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>2014 (7) TMI 148 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249111</link>
    <description>Goods produced by printing-related processes, including translates, vinyl self-adhesive stickers and vinyl graphic cut products, were treated as products of the printing industry under Chapter 49 because they were not shown to be integral parts of illuminated signboards. Heading 9405 was held to cover only illuminated signs, illuminated name plates and their parts not elsewhere specified or included. By contrast, duty on the remaining signboard parts, including metal-base signages and illuminated glow signs, was sustained because liability was undisputed. Penalty under Section 11AC was also upheld on the basis that registration was not taken and excise duty had not been paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 148 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249111</link>
      <description>Goods produced by printing-related processes, including translates, vinyl self-adhesive stickers and vinyl graphic cut products, were treated as products of the printing industry under Chapter 49 because they were not shown to be integral parts of illuminated signboards. Heading 9405 was held to cover only illuminated signs, illuminated name plates and their parts not elsewhere specified or included. By contrast, duty on the remaining signboard parts, including metal-base signages and illuminated glow signs, was sustained because liability was undisputed. Penalty under Section 11AC was also upheld on the basis that registration was not taken and excise duty had not been paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>