<?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>1999 (2) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90296</link>
    <description>Punching, drilling and similar processing of TC sets and DP sets did not amount to manufacture, so they were not liable to central excise duty. For tower parts and out-door structures, cutting materials to length and making holes did not bring into existence a new product distinct from the original angles, beams and channels, so these items were also treated as non-excisable. The appeal was rejected and the order holding the goods as non-excisable was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:31:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90296</link>
      <description>Punching, drilling and similar processing of TC sets and DP sets did not amount to manufacture, so they were not liable to central excise duty. For tower parts and out-door structures, cutting materials to length and making holes did not bring into existence a new product distinct from the original angles, beams and channels, so these items were also treated as non-excisable. The appeal was rejected and the order holding the goods as non-excisable was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>