<?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 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94189</link>
    <description>Intermediate products arising in a continuous bulk drug manufacturing process are not excisable unless the Revenue proves, with reliable evidence, that they are marketable goods; where the products are used captively in crude form and marketability is not established by testing, market enquiry, or technical material, the duty demand cannot stand. The extended limitation period is also unavailable unless suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty is shown; where the manufacturing process was disclosed and the dispute was a bona fide difference of view, the demand is time barred and the penalty cannot survive. The note states that duty, penalty, and confiscation were set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:48:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94189</link>
      <description>Intermediate products arising in a continuous bulk drug manufacturing process are not excisable unless the Revenue proves, with reliable evidence, that they are marketable goods; where the products are used captively in crude form and marketability is not established by testing, market enquiry, or technical material, the duty demand cannot stand. The extended limitation period is also unavailable unless suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty is shown; where the manufacturing process was disclosed and the dispute was a bona fide difference of view, the demand is time barred and the penalty cannot survive. The note states that duty, penalty, and confiscation were set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>