<?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>1980 (5) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40858</link>
    <description>Processing asbestos rock into commercially saleable asbestos fibre was held to be manufacture because the mined material underwent crushing, screening, cleaning and further processing until a new, distinct and marketable article emerged. The court applied the settled test of transformation into a different commodity with a separate name, character or use, and treated the Tariff Item specifically covering asbestos fibre as reinforcing Parliament&#039;s intent to tax the product as excisable goods. Once the excise levy was upheld, the challenge to additional customs duty based on a like article also failed, and the refund claim could not survive as a consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 13:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (5) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40858</link>
      <description>Processing asbestos rock into commercially saleable asbestos fibre was held to be manufacture because the mined material underwent crushing, screening, cleaning and further processing until a new, distinct and marketable article emerged. The court applied the settled test of transformation into a different commodity with a separate name, character or use, and treated the Tariff Item specifically covering asbestos fibre as reinforcing Parliament&#039;s intent to tax the product as excisable goods. Once the excise levy was upheld, the challenge to additional customs duty based on a like article also failed, and the refund claim could not survive as a consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>