<?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 (12) TMI 556 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96505</link>
    <description>Excise duty on websol was discussed as depending on proof of both manufacture and marketability, and the text notes that a mere movement of goods from preparation to use was treated as insufficient where commercial marketability was not found. It also states that the extended period of limitation requires deliberate suppression of material facts, which was not established where the department was already aware of the construction activity. On the exemption issue, the applicability of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. for goods manufactured at the construction site was said to require fresh factual examination. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 556 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96505</link>
      <description>Excise duty on websol was discussed as depending on proof of both manufacture and marketability, and the text notes that a mere movement of goods from preparation to use was treated as insufficient where commercial marketability was not found. It also states that the extended period of limitation requires deliberate suppression of material facts, which was not established where the department was already aware of the construction activity. On the exemption issue, the applicability of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. for goods manufactured at the construction site was said to require fresh factual examination. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>