<?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>1998 (9) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89882</link>
    <description>Broken and defective grinding wheels accepted in market enquiry as scrap, rather than as grinding wheels, were held not to be classifiable under Heading 6801.90. Waste and scrap were treated as different goods from grinding wheels, and the item was found neither marketable as grinding wheels nor as parts thereof. On that basis, the residuary classification was rejected and the broken wheels were held not to be excisable goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:41:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89882</link>
      <description>Broken and defective grinding wheels accepted in market enquiry as scrap, rather than as grinding wheels, were held not to be classifiable under Heading 6801.90. Waste and scrap were treated as different goods from grinding wheels, and the item was found neither marketable as grinding wheels nor as parts thereof. On that basis, the residuary classification was rejected and the broken wheels were held not to be excisable goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>