https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75346 The Court declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner challenging the Superintendent of Central Excise's orders on 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming.' The amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, deeming goods marketable if capable of being bought or sold, impacted the classification of these materials. The Court emphasized the link between marketability and excise duty, requiring proper invoicing for clearance post-amendment. Despite arguments that the materials are not marketable products but impurities, the Court considered the legislative change and potential tax implications, highlighting the need for proper invoicing in line with the amended definition of marketability. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75346 The Court declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner challenging the Superintendent of Central Excise's orders on 'Aluminium Dross and Skimming.' The amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, deeming goods marketable if capable of being bought or sold, impacted the classification of these materials. The Court emphasized the link between marketability and excise duty, requiring proper invoicing for clearance post-amendment. Despite arguments that the materials are not marketable products but impurities, the Court considered the legislative change and potential tax implications, highlighting the need for proper invoicing in line with the amended definition of marketability. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75346