<?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>2017 (6) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343831</link>
    <description>Excise duty was held not payable on gases that escaped into the atmosphere during continuous manufacture and pipeline supply, because the venting arose from the production process and pressure management rather than a marketable removal of goods. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own matter and the Board&#039;s circular stating that gases falling under the relevant chapters, when allowed to escape into the atmosphere, are not to be treated as manufactured goods liable to duty. It also noted that the Revenue had not shown receipt of consideration for the vented gases, supporting the finding that no excise liability arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 06:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343831</link>
      <description>Excise duty was held not payable on gases that escaped into the atmosphere during continuous manufacture and pipeline supply, because the venting arose from the production process and pressure management rather than a marketable removal of goods. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own matter and the Board&#039;s circular stating that gases falling under the relevant chapters, when allowed to escape into the atmosphere, are not to be treated as manufactured goods liable to duty. It also noted that the Revenue had not shown receipt of consideration for the vented gases, supporting the finding that no excise liability arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>