<?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 (9) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83428</link>
    <description>Marketability is a prerequisite for excise duty on a captive intermediate product, and the department failed to prove that the sizing mix was a separately marketable excisable product under Chapter 38.09. The demand therefore failed on excisability. Even assuming excisability, Notification No. 18/89 dated 6-4-1989 covered the relevant period, so the product was exempt and no duty could be demanded for that period. The relief from duty was accordingly left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83428</link>
      <description>Marketability is a prerequisite for excise duty on a captive intermediate product, and the department failed to prove that the sizing mix was a separately marketable excisable product under Chapter 38.09. The demand therefore failed on excisability. Even assuming excisability, Notification No. 18/89 dated 6-4-1989 covered the relevant period, so the product was exempt and no duty could be demanded for that period. The relief from duty was accordingly left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>