<?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 (11) TMI 563 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107246</link>
    <description>Slurry produced by admixing pesticides, insecticides, chemicals and water was held to fall within the deeming fiction of manufacture under Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 38, because the addition of chemicals and carriers created a product different from the inputs. Excise duty nevertheless failed because marketability was not proved: no material showed commercial acceptance, distinct identity in trade, or sale by the assessee or other manufacturers. Mere emergence of a new product was insufficient without proof that it was marketable. As the department did not establish marketability, the demand and penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 563 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107246</link>
      <description>Slurry produced by admixing pesticides, insecticides, chemicals and water was held to fall within the deeming fiction of manufacture under Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 38, because the addition of chemicals and carriers created a product different from the inputs. Excise duty nevertheless failed because marketability was not proved: no material showed commercial acceptance, distinct identity in trade, or sale by the assessee or other manufacturers. Mere emergence of a new product was insufficient without proof that it was marketable. As the department did not establish marketability, the demand and penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>