<?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>2019 (8) TMI 716 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384527</link>
    <description>Printed labels used in cigarette packing were treated as flat printed paper sleeves on the cigarette pouch, not as cartons, boxes, cases or other packing containers. The amended tariff structure after the Finance Act, 1988 was read with the earlier Supreme Court finding that the product was not a printed carton. On that basis, Heading 4819 90, which covered packing containers, did not fit the goods described in the show-cause notice, while the assessee&#039;s claimed heading for paper or paperboard labels was consistent with the product&#039;s character. The department&#039;s classification was therefore rejected and the assessee&#039;s classification accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 716 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384527</link>
      <description>Printed labels used in cigarette packing were treated as flat printed paper sleeves on the cigarette pouch, not as cartons, boxes, cases or other packing containers. The amended tariff structure after the Finance Act, 1988 was read with the earlier Supreme Court finding that the product was not a printed carton. On that basis, Heading 4819 90, which covered packing containers, did not fit the goods described in the show-cause notice, while the assessee&#039;s claimed heading for paper or paperboard labels was consistent with the product&#039;s character. The department&#039;s classification was therefore rejected and the assessee&#039;s classification accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>