<?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>2017 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342647</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal concluded that Zinc Ash and Aluminum Dross, as waste/byproducts of manufacturing processes, do not qualify as excisable goods subject to duty. The appeal of M/s Nav Bharat Metallic Oxide Industries Pvt. Ltd. against duty on Zinc Ash was allowed, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision. Similarly, the appeal of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. against duty on Aluminum Dross was upheld, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal relied on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the judgment of the Hon&#039;ble Bombay High Court to determine that these byproducts did not meet the criteria for excisability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 385 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342647</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal concluded that Zinc Ash and Aluminum Dross, as waste/byproducts of manufacturing processes, do not qualify as excisable goods subject to duty. The appeal of M/s Nav Bharat Metallic Oxide Industries Pvt. Ltd. against duty on Zinc Ash was allowed, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision. Similarly, the appeal of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. against duty on Aluminum Dross was upheld, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal relied on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the judgment of the Hon&#039;ble Bombay High Court to determine that these byproducts did not meet the criteria for excisability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>