<?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 (10) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87982</link>
    <description>Waste and scrap arising from manufacture are not excisable unless the tariff expressly brings such waste or scrap within the charge. Applying the earlier Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case, the CEGAT held that scrap of jelly-filled telecommunication cables could not be classified for duty merely by reference to the constituent copper or aluminium, because the relevant cable tariff contained no specific entry for such scrap. The mixed mass of metal and insulating material, as presented, also did not satisfy the tariff description of scrap under Chapters 74, 76 or 85. The interpretative rules on mixture and essential character did not change that result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:38:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87982</link>
      <description>Waste and scrap arising from manufacture are not excisable unless the tariff expressly brings such waste or scrap within the charge. Applying the earlier Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case, the CEGAT held that scrap of jelly-filled telecommunication cables could not be classified for duty merely by reference to the constituent copper or aluminium, because the relevant cable tariff contained no specific entry for such scrap. The mixed mass of metal and insulating material, as presented, also did not satisfy the tariff description of scrap under Chapters 74, 76 or 85. The interpretative rules on mixture and essential character did not change that result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>