<?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>1985 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72139</link>
    <description>Normal minimum packing required to make paper marketable may be treated as a process incidental or ancillary to manufacture under excise law, so wrapping paper used for packing reams or reels can qualify as material used in the manufacture of the completed commercial article. The majority reasoned that trade practice treats the packed ream or reel as the marketable excisable commodity, with the wrapper forming part of the finished product, and that the wording difference between Rule 56A and amended Rules 9 and 49 did not change that substance. The dissent viewed wrapping as a post-manufacturing distribution step, not part of manufacture, though it noted possible relief under Rule 56A if its conditions were met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 15:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72139</link>
      <description>Normal minimum packing required to make paper marketable may be treated as a process incidental or ancillary to manufacture under excise law, so wrapping paper used for packing reams or reels can qualify as material used in the manufacture of the completed commercial article. The majority reasoned that trade practice treats the packed ream or reel as the marketable excisable commodity, with the wrapper forming part of the finished product, and that the wording difference between Rule 56A and amended Rules 9 and 49 did not change that substance. The dissent viewed wrapping as a post-manufacturing distribution step, not part of manufacture, though it noted possible relief under Rule 56A if its conditions were met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>