<?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>2004 (1) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46993</link>
    <description>Preparation of printing paste by simple mixing of duty-paid dyes and other materials was held not to amount to manufacture on the facts considered, so the excise demand could not be sustained. The Court noted the Board&#039;s clarification that printing paste made from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes by simple mixing would not fall under the relevant tariff entry, and placed the burden on the Revenue to prove manufacture. It also reaffirmed that marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, and rejected the view that marketability was irrelevant. As those requirements were not established, the demand order was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46993</link>
      <description>Preparation of printing paste by simple mixing of duty-paid dyes and other materials was held not to amount to manufacture on the facts considered, so the excise demand could not be sustained. The Court noted the Board&#039;s clarification that printing paste made from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes by simple mixing would not fall under the relevant tariff entry, and placed the burden on the Revenue to prove manufacture. It also reaffirmed that marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, and rejected the view that marketability was irrelevant. As those requirements were not established, the demand order was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>