<?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>2002 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172257</link>
    <description>Aluminium dross was treated as not excisable because the issue was governed by an earlier SC ruling that dross generated in aluminium manufacture is not excisable. The Tribunal also noted that the new tariff description was materially similar to the earlier one and that its own prior decisions had followed the same position. In light of these binding and consistent authorities, the settled view was applied, resulting in waiver of predeposit and allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 838 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172257</link>
      <description>Aluminium dross was treated as not excisable because the issue was governed by an earlier SC ruling that dross generated in aluminium manufacture is not excisable. The Tribunal also noted that the new tariff description was materially similar to the earlier one and that its own prior decisions had followed the same position. In light of these binding and consistent authorities, the settled view was applied, resulting in waiver of predeposit and allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>