<?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>2011 (5) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204747</link>
    <description>PVC cure rods were treated as excisable and classifiable under Chapter 39 because the assessee did not prove that they lacked marketability. The Tribunal noted that the chemical technology report only described changes in density and size on exposure to boiling water, without establishing that the product was unsaleable or unusable, and the chartered engineer&#039;s declaration did not support non-marketable character. In the absence of evidence ruling out marketability, and because the product was known in the plastic industry and used in manufacture of PVC floats, the finding of excisability was upheld and the challenge to the order-in-appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204747</link>
      <description>PVC cure rods were treated as excisable and classifiable under Chapter 39 because the assessee did not prove that they lacked marketability. The Tribunal noted that the chemical technology report only described changes in density and size on exposure to boiling water, without establishing that the product was unsaleable or unusable, and the chartered engineer&#039;s declaration did not support non-marketable character. In the absence of evidence ruling out marketability, and because the product was known in the plastic industry and used in manufacture of PVC floats, the finding of excisability was upheld and the challenge to the order-in-appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>