<?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>1983 (12) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166753</link>
    <description>Casing head condensate compressed into liquid and used in tractor engines was treated as motor spirit under Item 6 of the Central Excise Tariff because it was a mineral oil with a flash point below 76 F and was suitable for use as fuel in internal combustion engines. Its actual use in engines supported that classification. Objections based on alleged lack of marketability, absence of Indian Standards specifications, low octane number, and sulphur content did not defeat tariff classification. The retrospective amendments to Rules 9 and 49 also removed the non-removal objection, so the condensate was correctly assessed to central excise duty as motor spirit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166753</link>
      <description>Casing head condensate compressed into liquid and used in tractor engines was treated as motor spirit under Item 6 of the Central Excise Tariff because it was a mineral oil with a flash point below 76 F and was suitable for use as fuel in internal combustion engines. Its actual use in engines supported that classification. Objections based on alleged lack of marketability, absence of Indian Standards specifications, low octane number, and sulphur content did not defeat tariff classification. The retrospective amendments to Rules 9 and 49 also removed the non-removal objection, so the condensate was correctly assessed to central excise duty as motor spirit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>