<?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>1999 (10) TMI 64 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45310</link>
    <description>Molten and broken glass cleared during the manufacturing process were held to fall within Item 23A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Supreme Court construed the expression &quot;other glass&quot; broadly and found that these materials arose at the final stage of manufacture, were commercially saleable, and had utility in glass production. They were therefore not mere waste or rubbish. The earlier ruling on aluminium dross and skimmings was distinguished because that case concerned waste thrown up in manufacture rather than marketable glass products. The assessee&#039;s contention failed, and the materials were treated as excisable goods liable to duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:28:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 64 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45310</link>
      <description>Molten and broken glass cleared during the manufacturing process were held to fall within Item 23A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Supreme Court construed the expression &quot;other glass&quot; broadly and found that these materials arose at the final stage of manufacture, were commercially saleable, and had utility in glass production. They were therefore not mere waste or rubbish. The earlier ruling on aluminium dross and skimmings was distinguished because that case concerned waste thrown up in manufacture rather than marketable glass products. The assessee&#039;s contention failed, and the materials were treated as excisable goods liable to duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>