<?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>2008 (3) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48183</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, ruling that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of Benzyl Methyl Salicylate (BMS), essential for excise duty imposition. The Court emphasized the need for distinct market presence for a product to be considered marketable, highlighting the absence of evidence of buying or selling in this case. Thus, the appeal was accepted, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48183</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, ruling that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of Benzyl Methyl Salicylate (BMS), essential for excise duty imposition. The Court emphasized the need for distinct market presence for a product to be considered marketable, highlighting the absence of evidence of buying or selling in this case. Thus, the appeal was accepted, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>