<?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>2006 (7) TMI 51 - Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=857</link>
    <description>Embossed plastic bags were treated as falling within the expression &quot;printed bags&quot; in Notification No. 21/2002 because Note 2 to Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act expressly includes embossing within &quot;printing&quot;. That inclusive tariff meaning was applied while construing the exemption notification, since the notification had to be read on its own language and consistently with the incorporated statutory definition. On that basis, embossing could not be excluded from the scope of printed bags, and the exemption was available. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee received the consequential benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 51 - Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=857</link>
      <description>Embossed plastic bags were treated as falling within the expression &quot;printed bags&quot; in Notification No. 21/2002 because Note 2 to Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act expressly includes embossing within &quot;printing&quot;. That inclusive tariff meaning was applied while construing the exemption notification, since the notification had to be read on its own language and consistently with the incorporated statutory definition. On that basis, embossing could not be excluded from the scope of printed bags, and the exemption was available. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee received the consequential benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>