<?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>2006 (6) TMI 304 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118640</link>
    <description>Captive production media used in the manufacture of antibiotics was analysed for excisability under Heading 38.21 on the basis of whether it constituted prepared culture media and whether marketability was proved. The material emerged as a bulk aqueous medium, was not dehydrated or packed in sealed sterile condition, and was not shown to be marketable in the form in which it arose. The absence of proved shelf life and its transitory character were treated as significant factors, with technical literature and precedent supporting the view that marketability had not been established. The product was therefore held not excisable, and the duty demand and allied liabilities were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:01:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 304 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118640</link>
      <description>Captive production media used in the manufacture of antibiotics was analysed for excisability under Heading 38.21 on the basis of whether it constituted prepared culture media and whether marketability was proved. The material emerged as a bulk aqueous medium, was not dehydrated or packed in sealed sterile condition, and was not shown to be marketable in the form in which it arose. The absence of proved shelf life and its transitory character were treated as significant factors, with technical literature and precedent supporting the view that marketability had not been established. The product was therefore held not excisable, and the duty demand and allied liabilities were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>