<?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>2007 (5) TMI 516 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122581</link>
    <description>Sugar syrup used in the manufacture of aerated water and fruit pulp based beverage was treated as prima facie non-marketable, given its short shelf life and low solid content, supporting a view against excisability. The order also held that exemption notifications prima facie applied to the disputed input: Notification No. 217/86-CE and Notification No. 67/95 for sugar syrup used in aerated water, and Notification No. 10/96-C.E. for sugar syrup used in fruit pulp based beverage under Chapter heading 22.02. The later notification was available only from its effective date, so the benefit applied partly for the overlapping period. On that basis, recovery of duty and penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:14:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 516 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122581</link>
      <description>Sugar syrup used in the manufacture of aerated water and fruit pulp based beverage was treated as prima facie non-marketable, given its short shelf life and low solid content, supporting a view against excisability. The order also held that exemption notifications prima facie applied to the disputed input: Notification No. 217/86-CE and Notification No. 67/95 for sugar syrup used in aerated water, and Notification No. 10/96-C.E. for sugar syrup used in fruit pulp based beverage under Chapter heading 22.02. The later notification was available only from its effective date, so the benefit applied partly for the overlapping period. On that basis, recovery of duty and penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>