<?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 (2) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44213</link>
    <description>Soap chips manufactured from trimmings in the same factory were not liable to excise duty under the exemption notification merely because a machine run on power was used. The controlling test was whether any process in their manufacture involved the aid of power or steam for heating. On the stated facts, there was no evidence that power was used for heating, so the notification could not be denied on the basis of power-driven machinery alone and the duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:36:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44213</link>
      <description>Soap chips manufactured from trimmings in the same factory were not liable to excise duty under the exemption notification merely because a machine run on power was used. The controlling test was whether any process in their manufacture involved the aid of power or steam for heating. On the stated facts, there was no evidence that power was used for heating, so the notification could not be denied on the basis of power-driven machinery alone and the duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>