<?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>2005 (10) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117042</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the demand of excise duty on parts of connectors as the marketability of the parts was not proven. The appeal by the Revenue regarding the classification of intermediate products was rejected based on the same reasoning. The burden of proof regarding marketability lies with the Revenue, and in the absence of such proof, the duty demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:37:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117042</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the demand of excise duty on parts of connectors as the marketability of the parts was not proven. The appeal by the Revenue regarding the classification of intermediate products was rejected based on the same reasoning. The burden of proof regarding marketability lies with the Revenue, and in the absence of such proof, the duty demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>