<?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 (11) TMI 294 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90810</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the LDPE film emerging during the manufacturing process of HDPE coated products was not excisable as it did not reach a state of marketability. Citing precedents, it was determined that the film was transient, physically and chemically unstable, and merged with the fabrics before becoming marketable. As the product did not exist as a separate entity and was not capable of being marketed in its intermediate stage, the duty evasion allegations were dismissed, and the penalty was lifted on appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:58:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 294 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90810</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the LDPE film emerging during the manufacturing process of HDPE coated products was not excisable as it did not reach a state of marketability. Citing precedents, it was determined that the film was transient, physically and chemically unstable, and merged with the fabrics before becoming marketable. As the product did not exist as a separate entity and was not capable of being marketed in its intermediate stage, the duty evasion allegations were dismissed, and the penalty was lifted on appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>