<?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 (3) TMI 1182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767796</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled on classification of student almanacs, teacher planners, diaries, workbooks, calendars, note-pads and scrap books. The tribunal held that student almanacs and teacher planners are classifiable under Chapter 48 as articles of paper, not Chapter 49, since 90% space remains blank for writing purposes despite containing school-specific information. The exemption for waste and scrap was denied as dutiable goods were manufactured. However, the extended period of limitation was rejected due to lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty or suppress facts. Penalties under Rule 26 on the director were set aside as conditions weren&#039;t met. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767796</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled on classification of student almanacs, teacher planners, diaries, workbooks, calendars, note-pads and scrap books. The tribunal held that student almanacs and teacher planners are classifiable under Chapter 48 as articles of paper, not Chapter 49, since 90% space remains blank for writing purposes despite containing school-specific information. The exemption for waste and scrap was denied as dutiable goods were manufactured. However, the extended period of limitation was rejected due to lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty or suppress facts. Penalties under Rule 26 on the director were set aside as conditions weren&#039;t met. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>