<?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>2005 (9) TMI 396 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116585</link>
    <description>Waste and scrap of paper and paperboard generated during manufacture were held not to be a distinct excisable product from the original input material. Applying a prior Tribunal view, the reasoning was that taxing such scrap would effectively amount to double taxation of the same material, so the proposed classification under Heading 47.02 was not accepted. The waste and scrap were therefore not dutiable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:43:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 396 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116585</link>
      <description>Waste and scrap of paper and paperboard generated during manufacture were held not to be a distinct excisable product from the original input material. Applying a prior Tribunal view, the reasoning was that taxing such scrap would effectively amount to double taxation of the same material, so the proposed classification under Heading 47.02 was not accepted. The waste and scrap were therefore not dutiable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>