<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1746 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466702</link>
    <description>Recovered spent solvents removed from a bulk drug manufacturing factory were held not exigible to central excise duty because earlier proceedings on the same facts had already treated the mixed solvents as non-excisable under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The later demand also failed because the show cause notices relied only on manufacture under Section 2(f) and did not invoke Section 2(d). The liability therefore remained covered by the prior binding view, and the duty demand could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 19:25:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1746 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466702</link>
      <description>Recovered spent solvents removed from a bulk drug manufacturing factory were held not exigible to central excise duty because earlier proceedings on the same facts had already treated the mixed solvents as non-excisable under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The later demand also failed because the show cause notices relied only on manufacture under Section 2(f) and did not invoke Section 2(d). The liability therefore remained covered by the prior binding view, and the duty demand could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>