<?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>1994 (11) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83951</link>
    <description>Stranding galvanised iron wire into GSS wire was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article with different strength, utility and identity, and the resulting wire was fit for stay-wire use. GSS wire was held classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 26AA, since no specific entry covered it. In job-work clearances, duty was held payable on the total value of the finished goods, not merely on job charges, as the notification relied upon was inapplicable. As the goods were cleared without licence, records or intimation, suppression was found and the extended limitation period applied; the demand was not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:29:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83951</link>
      <description>Stranding galvanised iron wire into GSS wire was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article with different strength, utility and identity, and the resulting wire was fit for stay-wire use. GSS wire was held classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 26AA, since no specific entry covered it. In job-work clearances, duty was held payable on the total value of the finished goods, not merely on job charges, as the notification relied upon was inapplicable. As the goods were cleared without licence, records or intimation, suppression was found and the extended limitation period applied; the demand was not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>