<?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 (4) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47298</link>
    <description>Marketability is an essential attribute of manufacture: a product is excisable if it is identifiable and saleable in the form in which it emerges. Applying that test, the compound (kimam) blended with saffron, spices, perfumes and menthol was treated as a distinct marketable product and classifiable as chewing tobacco or a preparation for chewing tobacco, so excise duty was attracted. Suppression of two manufacturing units, failure to obtain registration, non-maintenance of statutory records and duty-free clearances constituted concealment, so the extended period of limitation was justified. A plea of bona fide belief and possible proforma/Modvat credit did not succeed in the absence of reliable proof of compliance and credit entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47298</link>
      <description>Marketability is an essential attribute of manufacture: a product is excisable if it is identifiable and saleable in the form in which it emerges. Applying that test, the compound (kimam) blended with saffron, spices, perfumes and menthol was treated as a distinct marketable product and classifiable as chewing tobacco or a preparation for chewing tobacco, so excise duty was attracted. Suppression of two manufacturing units, failure to obtain registration, non-maintenance of statutory records and duty-free clearances constituted concealment, so the extended period of limitation was justified. A plea of bona fide belief and possible proforma/Modvat credit did not succeed in the absence of reliable proof of compliance and credit entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>