<?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>1998 (7) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89306</link>
    <description>Sand blocks cast manually at a project site, in sizes and shapes dictated by the construction work, were held not to be marketable goods because they did not conform to any standard commercial form and were used only for erection of the ash-bund. The department failed to prove that the product was known in the market or that market enquiries showed saleability. In the absence of evidence of marketability, the blocks could not be treated as excisable goods liable to central excise duty under Heading 68.07. Marketability was treated as an essential attribute of excisable goods, and the initial burden of proof rested on the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:20:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89306</link>
      <description>Sand blocks cast manually at a project site, in sizes and shapes dictated by the construction work, were held not to be marketable goods because they did not conform to any standard commercial form and were used only for erection of the ash-bund. The department failed to prove that the product was known in the market or that market enquiries showed saleability. In the absence of evidence of marketability, the blocks could not be treated as excisable goods liable to central excise duty under Heading 68.07. Marketability was treated as an essential attribute of excisable goods, and the initial burden of proof rested on the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>