<?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>1995 (4) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44001</link>
    <description>For excise purposes, aluminium dross and skimmings arising in manufacture were not treated as excisable goods under the pre-Tariff Item 68 regime because they were manufacturing residue, not marketable commercial commodities, so no duty was payable for that period. After the introduction of Tariff Item 68 and the explanation to Tariff Item 27, the same residues were still not brought within the residuary entry merely because they were excluded from the phrase &quot;waste and scrap&quot;; exclusion from that definition did not by itself make them goods classifiable to duty. Mere saleability was insufficient to establish marketability for excise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 21:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44001</link>
      <description>For excise purposes, aluminium dross and skimmings arising in manufacture were not treated as excisable goods under the pre-Tariff Item 68 regime because they were manufacturing residue, not marketable commercial commodities, so no duty was payable for that period. After the introduction of Tariff Item 68 and the explanation to Tariff Item 27, the same residues were still not brought within the residuary entry merely because they were excluded from the phrase &quot;waste and scrap&quot;; exclusion from that definition did not by itself make them goods classifiable to duty. Mere saleability was insufficient to establish marketability for excise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>