<?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 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90710</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, in a recent case, decided to waive the deposit of duty, penalty, and redemption fine for the appellant, totaling significant amounts, as it found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal disagreed with the department&#039;s argument that repacking and labeling rendered the goods marketable, emphasizing that marketability should be assessed in a general market context. It also interpreted a deeming provision in Chapter 33, noting the lack of significant value addition in the appellant&#039;s activities. The Tribunal&#039;s decision favored the appellant, staying the recovery of the financial obligations and directing against enforcing certain restrictions imposed by the jurisdictional Superintendent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:46:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90710</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, in a recent case, decided to waive the deposit of duty, penalty, and redemption fine for the appellant, totaling significant amounts, as it found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal disagreed with the department&#039;s argument that repacking and labeling rendered the goods marketable, emphasizing that marketability should be assessed in a general market context. It also interpreted a deeming provision in Chapter 33, noting the lack of significant value addition in the appellant&#039;s activities. The Tribunal&#039;s decision favored the appellant, staying the recovery of the financial obligations and directing against enforcing certain restrictions imposed by the jurisdictional Superintendent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>