<?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 (11) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87658</link>
    <description>Mere roughening of aluminium sheets on one side did not amount to manufacture because the process left the sheets&#039; essential character intact and did not produce a new and distinct commercial article. The roughened sheets remained only an intermediate product, requiring further sensitising, coating, exposure and development before becoming lithographic plates. Trade and technical evidence showed that roughened sheets and lithographic plates were commercially and functionally distinct, so the product was neither a lithographic plate at clearance nor a covered aluminium shapes-and-sections product under the notification. The exemption claim therefore failed, applying the settled test that processing amounts to manufacture only when it creates a commercially new product with a different name, character or use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:51:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87658</link>
      <description>Mere roughening of aluminium sheets on one side did not amount to manufacture because the process left the sheets&#039; essential character intact and did not produce a new and distinct commercial article. The roughened sheets remained only an intermediate product, requiring further sensitising, coating, exposure and development before becoming lithographic plates. Trade and technical evidence showed that roughened sheets and lithographic plates were commercially and functionally distinct, so the product was neither a lithographic plate at clearance nor a covered aluminium shapes-and-sections product under the notification. The exemption claim therefore failed, applying the settled test that processing amounts to manufacture only when it creates a commercially new product with a different name, character or use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>