<?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>2005 (2) TMI 119 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47213</link>
    <description>For excise levy, manufacture alone is insufficient; the department must also prove marketability of the intermediate product in the form in which it emerges from the factory. Silver chloride arising in the zinc-manufacturing process was treated as a chemically defined compound satisfying the manufacture test, but the record did not show that the slurry form with lower silver content and purity was capable of being bought and sold as such. The absence of a proper market enquiry or proof that the factory product matched the commercially available product meant marketability was not established, and duty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 119 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47213</link>
      <description>For excise levy, manufacture alone is insufficient; the department must also prove marketability of the intermediate product in the form in which it emerges from the factory. Silver chloride arising in the zinc-manufacturing process was treated as a chemically defined compound satisfying the manufacture test, but the record did not show that the slurry form with lower silver content and purity was capable of being bought and sold as such. The absence of a proper market enquiry or proof that the factory product matched the commercially available product meant marketability was not established, and duty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>