<?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 (1) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88510</link>
    <description>Cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of sensitised polyester films into smaller rolls, together with packing under special light conditions, was treated as falling outside manufacture for the relevant period. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that such processing does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and held that Board Circular No. 119/1/88-CX. III and Trade Notice No. 18/89 operated in different periods. It further held that the later trade notice did not retrospectively alter the earlier circular, so the disputed process remained non-manufacture before the trade notice became operative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:07:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88510</link>
      <description>Cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of sensitised polyester films into smaller rolls, together with packing under special light conditions, was treated as falling outside manufacture for the relevant period. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that such processing does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and held that Board Circular No. 119/1/88-CX. III and Trade Notice No. 18/89 operated in different periods. It further held that the later trade notice did not retrospectively alter the earlier circular, so the disputed process remained non-manufacture before the trade notice became operative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>