<?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 (8) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346986</link>
    <description>Sugar syrup manufactured at an intermediate stage and used captively in exempt final products was assessed on marketability, because central excise duty could arise only if the syrup was capable of sale as such. The analysis relied on test reports showing total soluble solids below the recognised 65% threshold for saleable syrup and on a certificate stating that such low-concentration syrup was perishable and unfit for marketing. CBEC circulars were read as treating sugar syrup as dutiable only where marketability is established. Reliance on alleged examples involving other assessees was rejected for want of proof and comparability, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346986</link>
      <description>Sugar syrup manufactured at an intermediate stage and used captively in exempt final products was assessed on marketability, because central excise duty could arise only if the syrup was capable of sale as such. The analysis relied on test reports showing total soluble solids below the recognised 65% threshold for saleable syrup and on a certificate stating that such low-concentration syrup was perishable and unfit for marketing. CBEC circulars were read as treating sugar syrup as dutiable only where marketability is established. Reliance on alleged examples involving other assessees was rejected for want of proof and comparability, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>