<?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>2015 (9) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263486</link>
    <description>Printed advertisement materials such as danglers, calendars and motifs were treated as products of the printing industry because their essential character and dominant use were as printed goods made for customers. The competing base-metal heading for sign-plates and similar articles did not fit these items merely because they were mounted on metal. The correct tariff classification was therefore Chapter 49, not Chapter 83, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263486</link>
      <description>Printed advertisement materials such as danglers, calendars and motifs were treated as products of the printing industry because their essential character and dominant use were as printed goods made for customers. The competing base-metal heading for sign-plates and similar articles did not fit these items merely because they were mounted on metal. The correct tariff classification was therefore Chapter 49, not Chapter 83, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>