<?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>2004 (4) TMI 359 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111586</link>
    <description>Nylon chips arising at an intermediate stage in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn were treated as marketable goods liable to central excise duty even when some quantity was captively consumed. The applicable test was whether the goods were capable of being brought to market for sale, not whether they were actually sold in every instance. Evidence that some chips were cleared on payment of duty supported marketability, and the absence of packing or nitrogen spraying for captively consumed goods did not negate that character because such precautions concern actual marketing, not inherent saleability. On that basis, the Revenue was held to have shown marketability and refund was not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 359 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111586</link>
      <description>Nylon chips arising at an intermediate stage in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn were treated as marketable goods liable to central excise duty even when some quantity was captively consumed. The applicable test was whether the goods were capable of being brought to market for sale, not whether they were actually sold in every instance. Evidence that some chips were cleared on payment of duty supported marketability, and the absence of packing or nitrogen spraying for captively consumed goods did not negate that character because such precautions concern actual marketing, not inherent saleability. On that basis, the Revenue was held to have shown marketability and refund was not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>