<?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 (6) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114464</link>
    <description>Ammonium hydroxide solution generated in the assessee&#039;s premises was treated as marketable and excisable because comparable market evidence had already supported marketability, the test report showed 5.9% ammonium content, and contrary material did not displace saleability. Its consumption in an effluent treatment plant to satisfy pollution control requirements was treated as use in relation to manufacture, attracting captive consumption treatment. For clearances to the other unit, classification under Chapter 29 and valuation required fresh determination, so the duty demand and penalty on those clearances were set aside and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114464</link>
      <description>Ammonium hydroxide solution generated in the assessee&#039;s premises was treated as marketable and excisable because comparable market evidence had already supported marketability, the test report showed 5.9% ammonium content, and contrary material did not displace saleability. Its consumption in an effluent treatment plant to satisfy pollution control requirements was treated as use in relation to manufacture, attracting captive consumption treatment. For clearances to the other unit, classification under Chapter 29 and valuation required fresh determination, so the duty demand and penalty on those clearances were set aside and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>