<?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 (12) TMI 172 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52488</link>
    <description>Holographic self-adhesive film was treated as a laminated plastic article classifiable under Heading 39.19, because Heading 39.19 covers self-adhesive plastic sheets and, under Note 2 to Section VII and the HSN Notes, such goods remain outside Chapter 49 even if printed with motifs or characters that are not merely incidental to use. The discussion also notes that suppression was not established where the product and manufacturing process were disclosed and the factory was visited, so the demand could not extend beyond the normal limitation period and penalty was not warranted. The classification result was upheld, while the demand was restricted to the normal period and penalties deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 172 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52488</link>
      <description>Holographic self-adhesive film was treated as a laminated plastic article classifiable under Heading 39.19, because Heading 39.19 covers self-adhesive plastic sheets and, under Note 2 to Section VII and the HSN Notes, such goods remain outside Chapter 49 even if printed with motifs or characters that are not merely incidental to use. The discussion also notes that suppression was not established where the product and manufacturing process were disclosed and the factory was visited, so the demand could not extend beyond the normal limitation period and penalty was not warranted. The classification result was upheld, while the demand was restricted to the normal period and penalties deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>