<?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>2003 (6) TMI 43 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51888</link>
    <description>Lamination and varnishing of paper or paperboard were treated as manufacture because the process created a distinct commercial product with a different character and use, and the resulting goods were considered marketable. The goods were classified under Heading 48.11 as coated, covered or surface-decorated paper and paperboard, while Chapter 49 treatment was rejected as inapplicable on the stated facts. Packing charges were includible in assessable value, and art and development charges were includible only to the extent attributable proportionately to the relevant goods. The extended period of limitation, confiscation for unaccounted stock and illicit removal, and company penalty were sustained, but personal penalties on the director and manager were set aside for lack of specific individual culpability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:44:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 43 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51888</link>
      <description>Lamination and varnishing of paper or paperboard were treated as manufacture because the process created a distinct commercial product with a different character and use, and the resulting goods were considered marketable. The goods were classified under Heading 48.11 as coated, covered or surface-decorated paper and paperboard, while Chapter 49 treatment was rejected as inapplicable on the stated facts. Packing charges were includible in assessable value, and art and development charges were includible only to the extent attributable proportionately to the relevant goods. The extended period of limitation, confiscation for unaccounted stock and illicit removal, and company penalty were sustained, but personal penalties on the director and manager were set aside for lack of specific individual culpability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>