<?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>1990 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81039</link>
    <description>Fiscal proceedings are not governed by strict res judicata, so an earlier Tribunal order in the same appellant&#039;s case did not preclude reconsideration where fresh technical literature, expert affidavits and later judicial pronouncements were produced. The record was sufficient for appellate decision, so remand for de novo adjudication was unnecessary. On excisability, an intermediate product containing sodium bicarbonate and impurities was usable only within manufacture and was not shown to be marketable or commercially known as sodium bicarbonate; in the absence of proof of marketability, it was not liable to central excise duty under the tariff entry. The demand was also beyond the normal limitation period, and penalty could not survive once duty and limitation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81039</link>
      <description>Fiscal proceedings are not governed by strict res judicata, so an earlier Tribunal order in the same appellant&#039;s case did not preclude reconsideration where fresh technical literature, expert affidavits and later judicial pronouncements were produced. The record was sufficient for appellate decision, so remand for de novo adjudication was unnecessary. On excisability, an intermediate product containing sodium bicarbonate and impurities was usable only within manufacture and was not shown to be marketable or commercially known as sodium bicarbonate; in the absence of proof of marketability, it was not liable to central excise duty under the tariff entry. The demand was also beyond the normal limitation period, and penalty could not survive once duty and limitation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>