<?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>2008 (1) TMI 869 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171853</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the confirmation of duty on aluminum dross and ash arising during the manufacturing process of die-casting aluminum parts. The Tribunal held that dross and skimming do not constitute manufactured products eligible for taxation solely based on the presence of metal, aligning with a Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant, dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, and disposed of the appellant&#039;s cross objection. The decision indirectly resolved the issue of penalty imposition, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal on penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 869 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171853</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the confirmation of duty on aluminum dross and ash arising during the manufacturing process of die-casting aluminum parts. The Tribunal held that dross and skimming do not constitute manufactured products eligible for taxation solely based on the presence of metal, aligning with a Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant, dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, and disposed of the appellant&#039;s cross objection. The decision indirectly resolved the issue of penalty imposition, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal on penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>