<?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 (9) TMI 42 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1049</link>
    <description>Chemical preparations captively used in film processing were not excisable because the department failed to prove factual marketability. Short shelf-life alone was insufficient to show that the goods could be sold in the market, and the laboratory evidence relied on did not establish the same formulations or conditions. Spent hypo-solutions used in the silver-extraction process also failed the marketability test: they were recycled rather than sold, and the product remained the same before and after silver extraction. As the essential requirement of marketability was not established, the onus on the department was not discharged and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 42 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1049</link>
      <description>Chemical preparations captively used in film processing were not excisable because the department failed to prove factual marketability. Short shelf-life alone was insufficient to show that the goods could be sold in the market, and the laboratory evidence relied on did not establish the same formulations or conditions. Spent hypo-solutions used in the silver-extraction process also failed the marketability test: they were recycled rather than sold, and the product remained the same before and after silver extraction. As the essential requirement of marketability was not established, the onus on the department was not discharged and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>