<?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>1996 (8) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85734</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the cutting and punching processes conducted by the appellant on angles and channels for transmission towers did not amount to &quot;manufacture&quot; under the Central Excises and Salt Act. As a result, the products were not subject to Central Excise duty, overturning the Department&#039;s contention that these activities transformed the nature of the goods, making them dutiable under Heading 7308.90. The Tribunal emphasized that to qualify as &quot;manufacture,&quot; a new marketable commodity must be created, and since cutting and punching for structural use did not meet this criteria, the duty demand was deemed erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 17:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85734</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the cutting and punching processes conducted by the appellant on angles and channels for transmission towers did not amount to &quot;manufacture&quot; under the Central Excises and Salt Act. As a result, the products were not subject to Central Excise duty, overturning the Department&#039;s contention that these activities transformed the nature of the goods, making them dutiable under Heading 7308.90. The Tribunal emphasized that to qualify as &quot;manufacture,&quot; a new marketable commodity must be created, and since cutting and punching for structural use did not meet this criteria, the duty demand was deemed erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>