<?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 (1) TMI 599 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172319</link>
    <description>Excise duty on a product described as plastisol was unsustainable because the department did not prove that it was a stable, commercially marketable excisable commodity. The evidence on shelf life, viscosity behaviour, stability and marketability was incomplete and internally inconsistent, while the appellant&#039;s expert evidence was not effectively rebutted and cross-examination on relied-upon material was denied. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the record showed repeated disclosures by the appellant and no suppression or deliberate misstatement. As the duty demand failed, the consequential penalties and interest likewise could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:24:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 599 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172319</link>
      <description>Excise duty on a product described as plastisol was unsustainable because the department did not prove that it was a stable, commercially marketable excisable commodity. The evidence on shelf life, viscosity behaviour, stability and marketability was incomplete and internally inconsistent, while the appellant&#039;s expert evidence was not effectively rebutted and cross-examination on relied-upon material was denied. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the record showed repeated disclosures by the appellant and no suppression or deliberate misstatement. As the duty demand failed, the consequential penalties and interest likewise could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>