<?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>2003 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52441</link>
    <description>Conversion of solid sodium silicate into liquid sodium silicate was held not proved to amount to manufacture because the Revenue failed to establish that the resultant liquid product was marketable as a consumer good under Chapter Note 10. The record showed earlier departmental clarification against excisability, and no sample test or expert evidence was produced to show stability or marketability of the liquid product. On the same factual basis, the assessee&#039;s belief that no declaration was required was treated as bona fide, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent suppression or wilful misstatement. Penalty and consequential demands therefore fell with the duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:21:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52441</link>
      <description>Conversion of solid sodium silicate into liquid sodium silicate was held not proved to amount to manufacture because the Revenue failed to establish that the resultant liquid product was marketable as a consumer good under Chapter Note 10. The record showed earlier departmental clarification against excisability, and no sample test or expert evidence was produced to show stability or marketability of the liquid product. On the same factual basis, the assessee&#039;s belief that no declaration was required was treated as bona fide, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent suppression or wilful misstatement. Penalty and consequential demands therefore fell with the duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>