<?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>2016 (2) TMI 283 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271578</link>
    <description>Excise duty was held inapplicable to impure dowtherm diphyl, PTA scrap, wash water, sludge oil, used oils and old bearings cleared from the factory as scrap or waste because duty arises only when goods are both excisable and manufactured. The record showed the items were old, used, damaged or waste materials, with no evidence that they were brought into existence through a manufacturing process as new and distinct products. Mere commercial sale or receipt of consideration did not convert waste into manufactured goods, and marketability alone was insufficient without manufacture. The disputed items were therefore not liable to central excise duty, and the assessee prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 283 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271578</link>
      <description>Excise duty was held inapplicable to impure dowtherm diphyl, PTA scrap, wash water, sludge oil, used oils and old bearings cleared from the factory as scrap or waste because duty arises only when goods are both excisable and manufactured. The record showed the items were old, used, damaged or waste materials, with no evidence that they were brought into existence through a manufacturing process as new and distinct products. Mere commercial sale or receipt of consideration did not convert waste into manufactured goods, and marketability alone was insufficient without manufacture. The disputed items were therefore not liable to central excise duty, and the assessee prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>