<?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>1996 (11) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45006</link>
    <description>An intermediate product arising in the manufacture of T.R. beltings, V-belts and conveyor belts can attract excise duty if it is marketable, even where it forms part of a composite, integrated and uninterrupted manufacturing process. Marketability had to be specifically examined, because the Department&#039;s case was that the intermediate product was capable of sale in the market. The High Court erred by proceeding on the assumption that marketability was not in issue and by not recording a clear finding on that aspect. On that reasoning, the challenge to excise liability failed, and the requirement to take out an L-4 licence was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:24:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45006</link>
      <description>An intermediate product arising in the manufacture of T.R. beltings, V-belts and conveyor belts can attract excise duty if it is marketable, even where it forms part of a composite, integrated and uninterrupted manufacturing process. Marketability had to be specifically examined, because the Department&#039;s case was that the intermediate product was capable of sale in the market. The High Court erred by proceeding on the assumption that marketability was not in issue and by not recording a clear finding on that aspect. On that reasoning, the challenge to excise liability failed, and the requirement to take out an L-4 licence was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>