<?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 (12) TMI 136 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50093</link>
    <description>An intermediate product is not dutiable as sugar syrup unless the department proves that it satisfies the recognised characteristics of syrup and is marketable. The laboratory report showed soluble solids below the level indicated in the Board circular and Chief Chemist&#039;s view, and no fresh test was obtained to displace that report, so the product was treated as a non-dutiable sugar solution. Suppression was also not established because the show cause notices did not allege the material facts later relied on, and the department already knew of the manufacturing activity. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 136 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50093</link>
      <description>An intermediate product is not dutiable as sugar syrup unless the department proves that it satisfies the recognised characteristics of syrup and is marketable. The laboratory report showed soluble solids below the level indicated in the Board circular and Chief Chemist&#039;s view, and no fresh test was obtained to displace that report, so the product was treated as a non-dutiable sugar solution. Suppression was also not established because the show cause notices did not allege the material facts later relied on, and the department already knew of the manufacturing activity. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>