<?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 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89506</link>
    <description>Punching plastic or paper sheets into dobby cards was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article for the first time, different in name, character and use from the raw sheets; the cards were therefore classifiable under the relevant Chapter headings and not under Heading 84.48. The extended period of limitation was also held valid because the assessee had no manufacturing licence, kept no production or clearance records, and failed to discharge duty, while mere departmental visits did not amount to disclosure. The penalty was sustained, and the appeal failed on both manufacture and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:45:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89506</link>
      <description>Punching plastic or paper sheets into dobby cards was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article for the first time, different in name, character and use from the raw sheets; the cards were therefore classifiable under the relevant Chapter headings and not under Heading 84.48. The extended period of limitation was also held valid because the assessee had no manufacturing licence, kept no production or clearance records, and failed to discharge duty, while mere departmental visits did not amount to disclosure. The penalty was sustained, and the appeal failed on both manufacture and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>