<?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>1998 (3) TMI 159 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48748</link>
    <description>Printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks cut from printed paperboard were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process gave them a distinct name, identity and marketability in trade. The order applied the tests of common parlance and marketability, and held that these articles were not covered by the specific packing-container tariff entry; they therefore fell under the residuary tariff item. On exemption, the articles were held outside Notification No. 104/82 because they were not regarded as products of the printing industry within the relevant annexure. The alternative benefit under Notification No. 66/82 was noted only if the specific packing-container tariff entry applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:53:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 159 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48748</link>
      <description>Printed outer shells, slides, sleeves and H.L. blanks cut from printed paperboard were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process gave them a distinct name, identity and marketability in trade. The order applied the tests of common parlance and marketability, and held that these articles were not covered by the specific packing-container tariff entry; they therefore fell under the residuary tariff item. On exemption, the articles were held outside Notification No. 104/82 because they were not regarded as products of the printing industry within the relevant annexure. The alternative benefit under Notification No. 66/82 was noted only if the specific packing-container tariff entry applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>