<?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>1992 (8) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82746</link>
    <description>Re-rubberisation of old and worn-out rubberised M.S. rims was held not to amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same process and agreed with the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) that the activity did not create a new manufactured product. On that basis, the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:08:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82746</link>
      <description>Re-rubberisation of old and worn-out rubberised M.S. rims was held not to amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same process and agreed with the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) that the activity did not create a new manufactured product. On that basis, the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>