<?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>2002 (9) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46336</link>
    <description>Marketability for excise purposes requires that an article be a commercially known and saleable product; a specially made plastic body for an electro mosquito repellant lacked such market identity and was therefore not excisable as a part under the notification. The fragrant mat, designed to emit perfume on burning, shared the essential commercial character and use of agarbatti-like preparations and was therefore classifiable under the specific tariff entry for such products rather than the residuary heading. The note concludes that the Revenue&#039;s classification approach was correct for the fragrant mat, while the plastic body did not attract duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 20:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46336</link>
      <description>Marketability for excise purposes requires that an article be a commercially known and saleable product; a specially made plastic body for an electro mosquito repellant lacked such market identity and was therefore not excisable as a part under the notification. The fragrant mat, designed to emit perfume on burning, shared the essential commercial character and use of agarbatti-like preparations and was therefore classifiable under the specific tariff entry for such products rather than the residuary heading. The note concludes that the Revenue&#039;s classification approach was correct for the fragrant mat, while the plastic body did not attract duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>