<?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>1989 (12) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80404</link>
    <description>Tobacco dust, stalks and stems were considered under the tariff distinction between unmanufactured tobacco at nil duty and manufactured tobacco under the residuary entry. The commentary explains that the tobacco-specific definition of manufacture is broad enough to cover processes incidental or ancillary to completion of the product, or treatment that makes it marketable, but the Department must prove that such processing actually occurred. On the material discussed, no sufficient basis was shown to classify the goods as manufactured tobacco, so tobacco dust and stalks remained unmanufactured tobacco and the duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:11:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80404</link>
      <description>Tobacco dust, stalks and stems were considered under the tariff distinction between unmanufactured tobacco at nil duty and manufactured tobacco under the residuary entry. The commentary explains that the tobacco-specific definition of manufacture is broad enough to cover processes incidental or ancillary to completion of the product, or treatment that makes it marketable, but the Department must prove that such processing actually occurred. On the material discussed, no sufficient basis was shown to classify the goods as manufactured tobacco, so tobacco dust and stalks remained unmanufactured tobacco and the duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>