<?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>2017 (4) TMI 686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341716</link>
    <description>Paper stickers, labels and publicity materials were treated as printed matter under Chapter 49, Heading 4911, because the printed motifs, pictures and text gave the goods their essential character and the paper served only as the medium. Note 12 to Chapter 48 was applied to exclude items whose printed features are not merely incidental to their primary use; the classification challenge therefore failed. Penalty on the partner under Rule 26 was also found unsustainable because the show cause notice did not allege any specific role, knowledge, mala fide intent, or reason to believe, and no supporting foundation for penalty was shown. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on both issues failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341716</link>
      <description>Paper stickers, labels and publicity materials were treated as printed matter under Chapter 49, Heading 4911, because the printed motifs, pictures and text gave the goods their essential character and the paper served only as the medium. Note 12 to Chapter 48 was applied to exclude items whose printed features are not merely incidental to their primary use; the classification challenge therefore failed. Penalty on the partner under Rule 26 was also found unsustainable because the show cause notice did not allege any specific role, knowledge, mala fide intent, or reason to believe, and no supporting foundation for penalty was shown. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on both issues failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>