<?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>1998 (3) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88345</link>
    <description>A plea going to the root of excisability may be raised at the appellate stage as an additional ground where it involves a mixed question of law and fact and no finding was recorded by the original authority. Here, the original adjudication addressed clubbing of clearances but did not decide whether pigment paste amounted to manufactured excisable goods. The matter therefore required fresh examination of whether the process produced a new commodity known to the market with a distinct name, character and use within the statutory definition of manufacture. The assessee was entitled to raise the issue, and remand for de novo adjudication was appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:03:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88345</link>
      <description>A plea going to the root of excisability may be raised at the appellate stage as an additional ground where it involves a mixed question of law and fact and no finding was recorded by the original authority. Here, the original adjudication addressed clubbing of clearances but did not decide whether pigment paste amounted to manufactured excisable goods. The matter therefore required fresh examination of whether the process produced a new commodity known to the market with a distinct name, character and use within the statutory definition of manufacture. The assessee was entitled to raise the issue, and remand for de novo adjudication was appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>