<?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 (11) TMI 436 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120367</link>
    <description>An intermediate non-woven jute sheet used in the manufacture of jute backed floor coverings was found to be marketable and therefore excisable under CET sub-heading 5603.00. The fact that similar products made by the assessee were cleared and marketed on payment of duty supported the department&#039;s initial burden on marketability. The assessee did not establish any real distinction between the captive intermediate product and the marketed product beyond asserting that it was uncured and lacked elasticity, and no curing process was shown at the relevant stage. The contention that the product had no market was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:21:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 436 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120367</link>
      <description>An intermediate non-woven jute sheet used in the manufacture of jute backed floor coverings was found to be marketable and therefore excisable under CET sub-heading 5603.00. The fact that similar products made by the assessee were cleared and marketed on payment of duty supported the department&#039;s initial burden on marketability. The assessee did not establish any real distinction between the captive intermediate product and the marketed product beyond asserting that it was uncured and lacked elasticity, and no curing process was shown at the relevant stage. The contention that the product had no market was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>