<?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>2000 (4) TMI 38 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45392</link>
    <description>Excisability of intermediate products arising during an integrated chemical process was in issue, specifically whether such intermediates were &quot;goods&quot; liable to excise duty absent proof of marketability. The SC held that even if an intermediate is specified in the tariff, duty cannot be levied unless it satisfies the marketability test; the appellate authority&#039;s factual finding that the intermediates were inseparable, transient process products not known in commercial parlance and not shown capable of being bought and sold was unchallenged. Mere mention in dictionaries, tariff entries, or drawback rules did not establish marketability. Consequently, the intermediates were not exigible to excise duty and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 38 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45392</link>
      <description>Excisability of intermediate products arising during an integrated chemical process was in issue, specifically whether such intermediates were &quot;goods&quot; liable to excise duty absent proof of marketability. The SC held that even if an intermediate is specified in the tariff, duty cannot be levied unless it satisfies the marketability test; the appellate authority&#039;s factual finding that the intermediates were inseparable, transient process products not known in commercial parlance and not shown capable of being bought and sold was unchallenged. Mere mention in dictionaries, tariff entries, or drawback rules did not establish marketability. Consequently, the intermediates were not exigible to excise duty and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>