<?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 (3) TMI 412 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90064</link>
    <description>Sugar syrup manufactured for use in aerated waters was examined on two connected questions: whether the product was marketable and therefore liable to duty, and whether Notification No. 217/86 protected the captively consumed goods. The adjudication order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law, leaving the liability and exemption issues to be reconsidered on the existing material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:11:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 412 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90064</link>
      <description>Sugar syrup manufactured for use in aerated waters was examined on two connected questions: whether the product was marketable and therefore liable to duty, and whether Notification No. 217/86 protected the captively consumed goods. The adjudication order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law, leaving the liability and exemption issues to be reconsidered on the existing material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>