<?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>2016 (8) TMI 39 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330655</link>
    <description>Printed articles made from customer-specific artwork and designs were held classifiable under Chapter 4901.90 as products of the printing industry, because the goods retained the character of printed matter rather than illuminated signs or their parts. Chapter 9405.90 was found inapplicable since it covers illuminated signs or components with a permanently fixed light source, and the goods were not shown to fit that description. The later binding Tribunal view on the same line of goods, following remand by the Supreme Court, supported the Chapter 49 classification and rejected the Revenue&#039;s contrary position, so the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 39 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330655</link>
      <description>Printed articles made from customer-specific artwork and designs were held classifiable under Chapter 4901.90 as products of the printing industry, because the goods retained the character of printed matter rather than illuminated signs or their parts. Chapter 9405.90 was found inapplicable since it covers illuminated signs or components with a permanently fixed light source, and the goods were not shown to fit that description. The later binding Tribunal view on the same line of goods, following remand by the Supreme Court, supported the Chapter 49 classification and rejected the Revenue&#039;s contrary position, so the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>