<?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>2019 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382552</link>
    <description>Sugar syrup captively consumed in biscuit manufacture was not shown to satisfy the tariff composition required for Chapter 1702, because the department produced no chemical test or other reliable evidence proving the prescribed fructose content. Marketability also could not be inferred from general references to invert sugar syrup or its use in confectionery and bakery products; it had to be established in the form in which the product emerged. As the department failed to discharge the burden of proving both classification and marketability, the intermediate product was not treated as dutiable and the excise demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2019 07:34:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382552</link>
      <description>Sugar syrup captively consumed in biscuit manufacture was not shown to satisfy the tariff composition required for Chapter 1702, because the department produced no chemical test or other reliable evidence proving the prescribed fructose content. Marketability also could not be inferred from general references to invert sugar syrup or its use in confectionery and bakery products; it had to be established in the form in which the product emerged. As the department failed to discharge the burden of proving both classification and marketability, the intermediate product was not treated as dutiable and the excise demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>