https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166873 An inclusive statutory definition of "rubber" was held to cover scrap rubber, making it liable to cess under the Act. For assessment, milling waste was not required to be deducted from scrap rubber because the levy applied to the quantity acquired for manufacture, and the dry rubber content concept was not treated as applicable to scrap rubber. The challenge under Article 14 also failed: the distinction between latex and other forms of rubber had a rational basis, and no hostile discrimination was shown. The levy and assessments were therefore sustained, and no relief was granted. en-us Thu, 10 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:34:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166873 An inclusive statutory definition of "rubber" was held to cover scrap rubber, making it liable to cess under the Act. For assessment, milling waste was not required to be deducted from scrap rubber because the levy applied to the quantity acquired for manufacture, and the dry rubber content concept was not treated as applicable to scrap rubber. The challenge under Article 14 also failed: the distinction between latex and other forms of rubber had a rational basis, and no hostile discrimination was shown. The levy and assessments were therefore sustained, and no relief was granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166873