<?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>1999 (1) TMI 124 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90697</link>
    <description>Marketability is a factual precondition for excisability, and the record here did not independently establish that L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric was a finished, marketable article liable to duty. The product had been disclosed to the department, the manufacturing process was known, and no reliable evidence showed that it was bought or sold in the market; on that basis, the duty demand failed on merits. Suppression or misdeclaration also could not be inferred where the relevant facts had already been disclosed and no contrary material justified the extended limitation period. The demand was therefore time-barred and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:11:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 124 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90697</link>
      <description>Marketability is a factual precondition for excisability, and the record here did not independently establish that L-2 Amino Butanol Tartaric was a finished, marketable article liable to duty. The product had been disclosed to the department, the manufacturing process was known, and no reliable evidence showed that it was bought or sold in the market; on that basis, the duty demand failed on merits. Suppression or misdeclaration also could not be inferred where the relevant facts had already been disclosed and no contrary material justified the extended limitation period. The demand was therefore time-barred and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>