<?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 (7) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89339</link>
    <description>Dilution of duty-paid P.V.A. solution did not amount to manufacture under Chapter 39 because the product remained P.V.A. solution before and after dilution, with no conversion from one primary form into another or change in essential character. Note 6 of Chapter 39 therefore did not apply to treat the process as manufacture, and the excise duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89339</link>
      <description>Dilution of duty-paid P.V.A. solution did not amount to manufacture under Chapter 39 because the product remained P.V.A. solution before and after dilution, with no conversion from one primary form into another or change in essential character. Note 6 of Chapter 39 therefore did not apply to treat the process as manufacture, and the excise duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>