<?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 153 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90846</link>
    <description>Carbon dioxide arising during beer fermentation was treated as an intermediate product and not dutiable because the Revenue failed to prove marketability; the gas was not removed in marketable form during the relevant period. The extended limitation period was unsustainable because the assessee&#039;s non-payment was based on a bona fide belief supported by departmental tariff advice. For fabricated SS/MS tanks made by an independent contractor, duty could not be fastened on the assessee where there was no evidence of financial flowback, control over the contractor, or dummy manufacture, so the job worker was the manufacturer for excise purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:46:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 153 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90846</link>
      <description>Carbon dioxide arising during beer fermentation was treated as an intermediate product and not dutiable because the Revenue failed to prove marketability; the gas was not removed in marketable form during the relevant period. The extended limitation period was unsustainable because the assessee&#039;s non-payment was based on a bona fide belief supported by departmental tariff advice. For fabricated SS/MS tanks made by an independent contractor, duty could not be fastened on the assessee where there was no evidence of financial flowback, control over the contractor, or dummy manufacture, so the job worker was the manufacturer for excise purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>