<?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 (9) TMI 476 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114407</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a dispute over central excise duty on powder manufactured from granules. The Tribunal found that the powder in question, produced by the respondents, was not marketable due to its sensitivity to lump formation, distinguishing it from a similar powder manufactured by another company. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner&#039;s assessment that the differences in manufacturing processes and characteristics justified the non-levy of excise duty. Consequently, the appeal brought by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the powder in question was not subject to central excise duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 14:29:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 476 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114407</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a dispute over central excise duty on powder manufactured from granules. The Tribunal found that the powder in question, produced by the respondents, was not marketable due to its sensitivity to lump formation, distinguishing it from a similar powder manufactured by another company. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner&#039;s assessment that the differences in manufacturing processes and characteristics justified the non-levy of excise duty. Consequently, the appeal brought by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the powder in question was not subject to central excise duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>