<?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 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88471</link>
    <description>A majority view in CEGAT, New Delhi held that dissolving polyvinyl alcohol powder in water did not, by itself, create a new excisable commodity with a different name, character or use, and that the amended Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 39 introduced a new deeming fiction rather than a merely clarificatory change. On that basis, the amendment was treated as prospective and the departmental contention on manufacture was not accepted. The reference issue was carried to the President for placement before a Larger Bench, while the dissent considered the point already settled by earlier Tribunal authority and would have rejected the appeal without further reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:58:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88471</link>
      <description>A majority view in CEGAT, New Delhi held that dissolving polyvinyl alcohol powder in water did not, by itself, create a new excisable commodity with a different name, character or use, and that the amended Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 39 introduced a new deeming fiction rather than a merely clarificatory change. On that basis, the amendment was treated as prospective and the departmental contention on manufacture was not accepted. The reference issue was carried to the President for placement before a Larger Bench, while the dissent considered the point already settled by earlier Tribunal authority and would have rejected the appeal without further reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>