<?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>2022 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430026</link>
    <description>Folders for inserting certificates bearing pre-printed particulars, logo and motif were classified under Chapter 49 because the printing was not merely incidental and no further printing or writing remained to be done; the assessee succeeded on classification for that item. The demand relating to waste paper could not be finally decided because neither the adjudication order nor the earlier order contained a specific finding on its classification, so the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration. For the remaining disputed items, the extended period of limitation was held not invocable, as the controversy was a bona fide tariff-classification dispute supported by the relevant chapter notes and departmental circular.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430026</link>
      <description>Folders for inserting certificates bearing pre-printed particulars, logo and motif were classified under Chapter 49 because the printing was not merely incidental and no further printing or writing remained to be done; the assessee succeeded on classification for that item. The demand relating to waste paper could not be finally decided because neither the adjudication order nor the earlier order contained a specific finding on its classification, so the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration. For the remaining disputed items, the extended period of limitation was held not invocable, as the controversy was a bona fide tariff-classification dispute supported by the relevant chapter notes and departmental circular.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>