<?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>2006 (1) TMI 394 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117390</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal setting aside the confiscation of S.S. Scrap in dust form. It determined that the material was scrap in dust form with negligible value and not classified as excisable goods. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found that the scrap did not qualify as goods and could not be confiscated for non-accountal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondents involved in the manufacturing of stain steel cut wire shots.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:12:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 394 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117390</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal setting aside the confiscation of S.S. Scrap in dust form. It determined that the material was scrap in dust form with negligible value and not classified as excisable goods. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found that the scrap did not qualify as goods and could not be confiscated for non-accountal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondents involved in the manufacturing of stain steel cut wire shots.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>