<?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>1997 (8) TMI 363 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98027</link>
    <description>Resin coated sand was treated as excisable goods because it had a distinct name, character and use and was known in the market as a commodity bought and sold as such, so the marketability test was satisfied and central excise duty applied on clearance for sale. The same product, when captively consumed in the manufacture of sand moulds, did not attract duty because there was no marketable clearance on that use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:20:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 363 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98027</link>
      <description>Resin coated sand was treated as excisable goods because it had a distinct name, character and use and was known in the market as a commodity bought and sold as such, so the marketability test was satisfied and central excise duty applied on clearance for sale. The same product, when captively consumed in the manufacture of sand moulds, did not attract duty because there was no marketable clearance on that use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>