<?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 (10) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81618</link>
    <description>HDPE bag and fabric waste was treated as non-excisable because waste becomes liable to excise only when specifically covered by the tariff. As no tariff entry covered the waste material in question, it could not be regarded as excisable goods, and the confiscation and penalties based on that premise could not stand. The fact that the goods had been exported after provisional release did not change their character for excise purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:38:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81618</link>
      <description>HDPE bag and fabric waste was treated as non-excisable because waste becomes liable to excise only when specifically covered by the tariff. As no tariff entry covered the waste material in question, it could not be regarded as excisable goods, and the confiscation and penalties based on that premise could not stand. The fact that the goods had been exported after provisional release did not change their character for excise purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>