<?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>1980 (7) TMI 109 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41205</link>
    <description>Offset printing paper of grammage exceeding 85 grams per sq. mt. was treated as cartridge paper under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because tariff classification depended on common trade understanding, material composition, and the structure of the tariff entries. The paper was described in trade as hard, strong cartridge paper suitable for offset printing and made from bamboo or grass stock. Its capability for printing did not displace the more specific tariff description, and evidence of actual use for offset printing did not rebut its trade identity. A specific commercial description prevailed over a broader competing entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 12:18:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (7) TMI 109 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41205</link>
      <description>Offset printing paper of grammage exceeding 85 grams per sq. mt. was treated as cartridge paper under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because tariff classification depended on common trade understanding, material composition, and the structure of the tariff entries. The paper was described in trade as hard, strong cartridge paper suitable for offset printing and made from bamboo or grass stock. Its capability for printing did not displace the more specific tariff description, and evidence of actual use for offset printing did not rebut its trade identity. A specific commercial description prevailed over a broader competing entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>