<?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>2025 (2) TMI 948 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766401</link>
    <description>Printed thermal ATM rolls were treated as products of the printing industry under Chapter 49, because the bank-specific markings, logos and transaction particulars were found to give the goods their essential character and printing was not merely incidental. The tariff distinction between Chapter 48 paper products and Chapter 49 printed matter was applied on the basis that pre-17.03.2012 printed paper fell in Chapter 49 where printing was substantive, while the later Chapter Note 14 to Chapter 48 was treated as prospective and confined to paper intended for further printing or writing. The contrary reliance on printed cartons and packaging articles was held inapplicable, and the duty demands and penalties were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=801362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 948 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766401</link>
      <description>Printed thermal ATM rolls were treated as products of the printing industry under Chapter 49, because the bank-specific markings, logos and transaction particulars were found to give the goods their essential character and printing was not merely incidental. The tariff distinction between Chapter 48 paper products and Chapter 49 printed matter was applied on the basis that pre-17.03.2012 printed paper fell in Chapter 49 where printing was substantive, while the later Chapter Note 14 to Chapter 48 was treated as prospective and confined to paper intended for further printing or writing. The contrary reliance on printed cartons and packaging articles was held inapplicable, and the duty demands and penalties were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>