<?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>Classification of tin cuttings and trimmings under the Central Excise Tariff depends on Section Note 6(a) of Section XV. Metal waste and scrap arising from manufacture or mechanical working of metals falls within the tariff definition without requiring that it be usable only for metal recovery or chemicals; commercial use alone does not exclude it from that category. However, classification also requires examination of how the cuttings are processed into articles such as sieves, buttons and toys. Because the factual record was incomplete and the appellate order lacked adequate reasoning, the classification dispute required fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</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>Classification of tin cuttings and trimmings under the Central Excise Tariff depends on Section Note 6(a) of Section XV. Metal waste and scrap arising from manufacture or mechanical working of metals falls within the tariff definition without requiring that it be usable only for metal recovery or chemicals; commercial use alone does not exclude it from that category. However, classification also requires examination of how the cuttings are processed into articles such as sieves, buttons and toys. Because the factual record was incomplete and the appellate order lacked adequate reasoning, the classification dispute required fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</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>