<?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>1983 (12) TMI 296 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166812</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of white offset printing paper depended on its true commercial and technical identity, not on grammage alone. On the evidence, offset printing paper was a distinct variety used for offset lithography and was not to be treated as cartridge paper under the higher tariff entry. The reclassification in favour of the assessee therefore stood, and the duty collected in excess on the wrong classification was held refundable as consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:57:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 296 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166812</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of white offset printing paper depended on its true commercial and technical identity, not on grammage alone. On the evidence, offset printing paper was a distinct variety used for offset lithography and was not to be treated as cartridge paper under the higher tariff entry. The reclassification in favour of the assessee therefore stood, and the duty collected in excess on the wrong classification was held refundable as consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>