<?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>2002 (10) TMI 625 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107232</link>
    <description>Marketability is treated as a prerequisite for excisability, and duty on paper brokes and waste was found unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove a distinct commercial product or marketability; the exemption position also supported non-levy. Bleach liquor/calcium hypochloride was held to require fresh factual examination on marketability, since tariff classification alone did not establish excisability. CENVAT credit on inputs used for wrapping paper was recognised as available subject to documentary proof of duty-paid inputs, receipt and use in the factory. Penalties were viewed as unwarranted where the disputes involved bona fide questions of law and fact without mala fides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 625 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107232</link>
      <description>Marketability is treated as a prerequisite for excisability, and duty on paper brokes and waste was found unsustainable because the Revenue did not prove a distinct commercial product or marketability; the exemption position also supported non-levy. Bleach liquor/calcium hypochloride was held to require fresh factual examination on marketability, since tariff classification alone did not establish excisability. CENVAT credit on inputs used for wrapping paper was recognised as available subject to documentary proof of duty-paid inputs, receipt and use in the factory. Penalties were viewed as unwarranted where the disputes involved bona fide questions of law and fact without mala fides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>