<?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 (1) TMI 487 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109706</link>
    <description>Marketability is a condition precedent to excisability under central excise law, so an intermediate product is not liable to duty unless it is shown to be sold or capable of being marketed. On the record, no evidence established that the intermediate felt had marketability at the stage in question, and the Supreme Court principle on marketability supported that conclusion. The felt was therefore not proved to be excisable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 487 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109706</link>
      <description>Marketability is a condition precedent to excisability under central excise law, so an intermediate product is not liable to duty unless it is shown to be sold or capable of being marketed. On the record, no evidence established that the intermediate felt had marketability at the stage in question, and the Supreme Court principle on marketability supported that conclusion. The felt was therefore not proved to be excisable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>