<?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>2010 (6) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185114</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the marketability and excisability of &quot;Malt Extract&quot; or &quot;WORT&quot; was dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision was based on a previous ruling that established the commodity was not marketable or excisable. The department had accepted this ruling in a prior order, and a similar demand of duty was dropped in a subsequent case. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the significance of precedent and consistency in tax matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 10:36:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185114</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the marketability and excisability of &quot;Malt Extract&quot; or &quot;WORT&quot; was dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision was based on a previous ruling that established the commodity was not marketable or excisable. The department had accepted this ruling in a prior order, and a similar demand of duty was dropped in a subsequent case. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the significance of precedent and consistency in tax matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>