<?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 (10) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86028</link>
    <description>Conversion of bitumen into bitumen aqueous emulsion amounts to manufacture because the process yields a distinct product with separate commercial identity, character and use. Exemption under Notification No. 8(9)/55-C.E. was available only for clearances actually used for road surfacing and conforming to the relevant specification, not for roofing clearances. In bituminised hessian cloth and cotton cloth work, the appellants were treated as manufacturers rather than mere job workers, and valuation had to be reworked on the settled job-work basis in Ujagar Prints. The demand was held time-barred for want of a valid basis to invoke the extended period, and the penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:09:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86028</link>
      <description>Conversion of bitumen into bitumen aqueous emulsion amounts to manufacture because the process yields a distinct product with separate commercial identity, character and use. Exemption under Notification No. 8(9)/55-C.E. was available only for clearances actually used for road surfacing and conforming to the relevant specification, not for roofing clearances. In bituminised hessian cloth and cotton cloth work, the appellants were treated as manufacturers rather than mere job workers, and valuation had to be reworked on the settled job-work basis in Ujagar Prints. The demand was held time-barred for want of a valid basis to invoke the extended period, and the penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>