<?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>1992 (2) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43192</link>
    <description>Machining and honing of cylinder liners in the factory converted crude iron castings into an identifiable finished commercial commodity, so the goods ceased to remain exempt iron castings and became dutiable manufactured goods under Tariff Item No. 68. The Court held that excise is attracted by manufacture, not by the eventual use of the product, and rejected reliance on an earlier rough-machining comparison because the present processing was more substantial. Prior approval of an incorrect classification list did not bar notice or levy, as there is no estoppel against statute; the only safeguard remained limitation. The appeal was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43192</link>
      <description>Machining and honing of cylinder liners in the factory converted crude iron castings into an identifiable finished commercial commodity, so the goods ceased to remain exempt iron castings and became dutiable manufactured goods under Tariff Item No. 68. The Court held that excise is attracted by manufacture, not by the eventual use of the product, and rejected reliance on an earlier rough-machining comparison because the present processing was more substantial. Prior approval of an incorrect classification list did not bar notice or levy, as there is no estoppel against statute; the only safeguard remained limitation. The appeal was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>