https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53863 For tariff classification, the actual nature and use of goods prevails over the description used in invoices. Interleave carbon paper supplied as computer stationery in sets and as interleaved carbon sets did not fit Heading 48.20 in substance, so the mere bill description could not justify that classification. On the facts noted, the goods were held not classifiable under Heading 48.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the classification upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:04:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53863 For tariff classification, the actual nature and use of goods prevails over the description used in invoices. Interleave carbon paper supplied as computer stationery in sets and as interleaved carbon sets did not fit Heading 48.20 in substance, so the mere bill description could not justify that classification. On the facts noted, the goods were held not classifiable under Heading 48.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the classification upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53863