<?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>1992 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82482</link>
    <description>Broken glazed tiles arising during manufacture were treated as not excisable goods, because prior Tribunal rulings had already settled that such waste is not exigible to duty. The fact that broken tiles could be sold in the market did not by itself make them dutiable or justify classification as other goods under Heading 6906.90. The earlier ratio in the assessee&#039;s own matter and in Somany Pilkingtons Pvt. Ltd. was applied, and the departmental classification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:35:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82482</link>
      <description>Broken glazed tiles arising during manufacture were treated as not excisable goods, because prior Tribunal rulings had already settled that such waste is not exigible to duty. The fact that broken tiles could be sold in the market did not by itself make them dutiable or justify classification as other goods under Heading 6906.90. The earlier ratio in the assessee&#039;s own matter and in Somany Pilkingtons Pvt. Ltd. was applied, and the departmental classification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>