<?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>2000 (9) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94057</link>
    <description>A cane juice clarifier marketed in different sizes and designs was treated as a manufactured, marketable product rather than an item permanently embedded to earth. The claim that it was outside the ambit of excisable goods was rejected because the product literature showed commercial sale as a movable article, and the relied-on authority was distinguished as concerning goods permanently fixed to earth and not marketable as such. Excise duty was therefore upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:23:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94057</link>
      <description>A cane juice clarifier marketed in different sizes and designs was treated as a manufactured, marketable product rather than an item permanently embedded to earth. The claim that it was outside the ambit of excisable goods was rejected because the product literature showed commercial sale as a movable article, and the relied-on authority was distinguished as concerning goods permanently fixed to earth and not marketable as such. Excise duty was therefore upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>