<?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>2022 (2) TMI 665 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418414</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the sugar syrup used in the manufacture of biscuits was not excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision overturned the lower authorities&#039; confirmation of duty demand, interest liability, and penalty imposition, emphasizing the specific role and marketability of the sugar syrup in biscuit manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted that the product did not meet marketability requirements and referenced past decisions supporting the appellants&#039; position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:42:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 665 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418414</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the sugar syrup used in the manufacture of biscuits was not excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision overturned the lower authorities&#039; confirmation of duty demand, interest liability, and penalty imposition, emphasizing the specific role and marketability of the sugar syrup in biscuit manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted that the product did not meet marketability requirements and referenced past decisions supporting the appellants&#039; position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>