<?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 (5) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85467</link>
    <description>Marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability under central excise law, and a product must be a distinct, identifiable commodity known in the market before duty can attach. Neutralised fermentation broth described as calcium citrate was found to be a heterogeneous, unstable and unmarketable intermediate, so it was not excisable. Culture media was also held outside Heading 38.21 because the entry covers prepared, marketable culture media in a recognised form, whereas the product was treated as an unstable impure solution containing developed bacteria and not a qualifying preparation. The Revenue&#039;s case failed on both counts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:58:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85467</link>
      <description>Marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability under central excise law, and a product must be a distinct, identifiable commodity known in the market before duty can attach. Neutralised fermentation broth described as calcium citrate was found to be a heterogeneous, unstable and unmarketable intermediate, so it was not excisable. Culture media was also held outside Heading 38.21 because the entry covers prepared, marketable culture media in a recognised form, whereas the product was treated as an unstable impure solution containing developed bacteria and not a qualifying preparation. The Revenue&#039;s case failed on both counts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>