<?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>1994 (3) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83097</link>
    <description>Excise duty on an intermediate product was unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove that the audio cassette housing or its component stage had emerged as independent, marketable goods with separate commercial identity, name, character and use. The manufacturing process showed assembly into the final cassette, and there was no evidence of actual marketability or separate sale. The demand was also time-barred because the assessee had disclosed the classification lists and price bifurcation, and the department failed to establish wilful suppression or misdeclaration needed to invoke the extended limitation period. The excise demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:50:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83097</link>
      <description>Excise duty on an intermediate product was unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove that the audio cassette housing or its component stage had emerged as independent, marketable goods with separate commercial identity, name, character and use. The manufacturing process showed assembly into the final cassette, and there was no evidence of actual marketability or separate sale. The demand was also time-barred because the assessee had disclosed the classification lists and price bifurcation, and the department failed to establish wilful suppression or misdeclaration needed to invoke the extended limitation period. The excise demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>