<?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>1997 (5) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87535</link>
    <description>Polyurethane foam formed in situ by the interaction of polyols and isocyanates within articles such as water jugs was treated as not amounting to manufacture. Earlier Tribunal decisions were followed on the basis that in situ formation inside the cavity of an article does not create excisable goods, and the foam&#039;s non-marketable character also kept it outside excisability. On that reasoning, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate orders failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:15:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87535</link>
      <description>Polyurethane foam formed in situ by the interaction of polyols and isocyanates within articles such as water jugs was treated as not amounting to manufacture. Earlier Tribunal decisions were followed on the basis that in situ formation inside the cavity of an article does not create excisable goods, and the foam&#039;s non-marketable character also kept it outside excisability. On that reasoning, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate orders failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>