<?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 (12) TMI 432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117871</link>
    <description>Excise classification turns on the commercial identity of the goods and accepted technical standards, and HSN notes cannot be used to widen a clear tariff entry beyond its ordinary meaning; on that basis, acid resistance clay bricks were treated as not falling within fire clay bricks. Coal ash arising as residue from burning coal was described as not being a manufactured product and therefore not exigible to excise duty. The dispute over stone pipes said to be salt glazed required fresh examination because the record was insufficient to decide finally whether the coating process and commercial identity supported salt glazing or slip glazing, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117871</link>
      <description>Excise classification turns on the commercial identity of the goods and accepted technical standards, and HSN notes cannot be used to widen a clear tariff entry beyond its ordinary meaning; on that basis, acid resistance clay bricks were treated as not falling within fire clay bricks. Coal ash arising as residue from burning coal was described as not being a manufactured product and therefore not exigible to excise duty. The dispute over stone pipes said to be salt glazed required fresh examination because the record was insufficient to decide finally whether the coating process and commercial identity supported salt glazing or slip glazing, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>