<?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>1996 (9) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86491</link>
    <description>Section Note 6(a) of Section XV was treated as the controlling test for classifying metal waste and scrap arising from manufacture or mechanical working of metals. The note was read as covering such material on its own tariff definition, without adding the older circular-based requirement that it must be fit only for recovery of metal or chemical use. Commercial use of the cuttings did not, by itself, exclude them from waste and scrap. The record was incomplete, however, because the actual processing of the tin cuttings into articles such as sieves, buttons and toys had not been examined, and the order below was not a speaking order. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh classification on the correct facts and tariff test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:43:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86491</link>
      <description>Section Note 6(a) of Section XV was treated as the controlling test for classifying metal waste and scrap arising from manufacture or mechanical working of metals. The note was read as covering such material on its own tariff definition, without adding the older circular-based requirement that it must be fit only for recovery of metal or chemical use. Commercial use of the cuttings did not, by itself, exclude them from waste and scrap. The record was incomplete, however, because the actual processing of the tin cuttings into articles such as sieves, buttons and toys had not been examined, and the order below was not a speaking order. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh classification on the correct facts and tariff test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>