https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204631 Where goods were established as mine waste or mineral reject, and not limestone, the excise credit rules for demanding a percentage-based payment did not apply. That classification was supported by the Indian Bureau of Mines clarification and by State Industries Department disposal permission, both indicating that the material was waste or residue rather than limestone. On that factual footing, the demand raised under the excise credit rules was held unsustainable, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204631 Where goods were established as mine waste or mineral reject, and not limestone, the excise credit rules for demanding a percentage-based payment did not apply. That classification was supported by the Indian Bureau of Mines clarification and by State Industries Department disposal permission, both indicating that the material was waste or residue rather than limestone. On that factual footing, the demand raised under the excise credit rules was held unsustainable, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204631