<?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>2018 (6) TMI 564 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361737</link>
    <description>Sugar syrup arising as an intermediate product during biscuit manufacture was not liable to Central Excise duty because marketability was not shown. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that an intermediate product becomes dutiable only if it is marketable in the form in which it emerges. As no evidence established that the sugar syrup was marketable, captive consumption in the factory did not attract duty. The demand and consequential adverse orders could not be sustained, and relief followed in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:41:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 564 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361737</link>
      <description>Sugar syrup arising as an intermediate product during biscuit manufacture was not liable to Central Excise duty because marketability was not shown. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that an intermediate product becomes dutiable only if it is marketable in the form in which it emerges. As no evidence established that the sugar syrup was marketable, captive consumption in the factory did not attract duty. The demand and consequential adverse orders could not be sustained, and relief followed in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>