<?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>1996 (4) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85311</link>
    <description>Marketability is a condition precedent to excisability, and an intermediate product is liable to central excise only if it is capable of sale as a distinct and identifiable commodity. On the facts, crude sorbitol generated captively in the manufacture of ascorbic acid was treated as a transient, unstable intermediate with a short shelf life and no established market. Technical literature, expert affidavits and trade letters supported the assessee&#039;s case, while the department did not produce persuasive evidence that the product was actually marketable. The burden in a demand case lay on the department to prove marketability, and that burden was not discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:32:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85311</link>
      <description>Marketability is a condition precedent to excisability, and an intermediate product is liable to central excise only if it is capable of sale as a distinct and identifiable commodity. On the facts, crude sorbitol generated captively in the manufacture of ascorbic acid was treated as a transient, unstable intermediate with a short shelf life and no established market. Technical literature, expert affidavits and trade letters supported the assessee&#039;s case, while the department did not produce persuasive evidence that the product was actually marketable. The burden in a demand case lay on the department to prove marketability, and that burden was not discharged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>