<?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 (7) TMI 12 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=628</link>
    <description>Polyurethane foam mattresses, pillows, cushions and similar articles were held classifiable under Chapter 94 as bedding and furnishing articles, not as Chapter 39 polyurethane foam goods, because they were described and cleared in the market as such and the Revenue produced no contrary evidence. On that basis, the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was available and the classification-based demand failed. The intermediate foam blocks were held not excisable because the Revenue did not prove marketability; a theoretical possibility of use was insufficient. Issues concerning excess stock and the director&#039;s penalty were remanded for fresh adjudication because they had not been dealt with in the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 12 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=628</link>
      <description>Polyurethane foam mattresses, pillows, cushions and similar articles were held classifiable under Chapter 94 as bedding and furnishing articles, not as Chapter 39 polyurethane foam goods, because they were described and cleared in the market as such and the Revenue produced no contrary evidence. On that basis, the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was available and the classification-based demand failed. The intermediate foam blocks were held not excisable because the Revenue did not prove marketability; a theoretical possibility of use was insufficient. Issues concerning excess stock and the director&#039;s penalty were remanded for fresh adjudication because they had not been dealt with in the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>