<?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>2012 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170172</link>
    <description>Paper products used as gift wrappers and belt sleeves were treated as wrappers or packing articles, not labels, because Heading 48.21 applies only to articles serving as attachments to identify or describe goods. The goods were therefore classified under Heading 4819.19. Penalty under Section 11AC was held leviable on the manufacturer because the record indicated awareness of the competing classifications and adoption of the label heading to avoid duty. By contrast, the director&#039;s personal penalty under Section 209A was set aside for lack of specific material showing individual involvement in evasion. Duty was to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, with the realised price split into assessable value and duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 18:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170172</link>
      <description>Paper products used as gift wrappers and belt sleeves were treated as wrappers or packing articles, not labels, because Heading 48.21 applies only to articles serving as attachments to identify or describe goods. The goods were therefore classified under Heading 4819.19. Penalty under Section 11AC was held leviable on the manufacturer because the record indicated awareness of the competing classifications and adoption of the label heading to avoid duty. By contrast, the director&#039;s personal penalty under Section 209A was set aside for lack of specific material showing individual involvement in evasion. Duty was to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, with the realised price split into assessable value and duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>