<?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>1995 (11) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85267</link>
    <description>Aluminium dross, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material arising incidentally in aluminium manufacture were treated as waste, refuse or residue rather than marketable excisable goods. The governing principle applied was that marketability is an essential element of excisability, and mere saleability or inclusion within a tariff chapter for ash and residues does not by itself attract central excise duty. On the facts, the materials were not the intended final products of manufacture, so the duty demands and penalties were unsustainable. The extended limitation period also failed because suppression was not established where the department had relevant knowledge of the clearances and returns.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:09:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85267</link>
      <description>Aluminium dross, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material arising incidentally in aluminium manufacture were treated as waste, refuse or residue rather than marketable excisable goods. The governing principle applied was that marketability is an essential element of excisability, and mere saleability or inclusion within a tariff chapter for ash and residues does not by itself attract central excise duty. On the facts, the materials were not the intended final products of manufacture, so the duty demands and penalties were unsustainable. The extended limitation period also failed because suppression was not established where the department had relevant knowledge of the clearances and returns.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>