<?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>2008 (8) TMI 615 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124037</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside Orders-in-Appeal that included CO2 value in beverage syrup for duty payment, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It was held that if the beverage syrup is not marketable without CO2, it is not excisable, and therefore, the CO2 value should not be added for duty payment. The decision emphasized the need to assess marketability and excisability in determining duty payments. Both parties were represented, and the Tribunal made its decision after considering arguments and evidence presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 615 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124037</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside Orders-in-Appeal that included CO2 value in beverage syrup for duty payment, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. It was held that if the beverage syrup is not marketable without CO2, it is not excisable, and therefore, the CO2 value should not be added for duty payment. The decision emphasized the need to assess marketability and excisability in determining duty payments. Both parties were represented, and the Tribunal made its decision after considering arguments and evidence presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>