<?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 (4) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90755</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the process undertaken did not amount to manufacturing new marketable products subject to duty. The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and penalty, allowing the appeal based on the finding that the engraved nickel cylinders were not new products and thus not liable for duty. The decision was supported by interpretations of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and departmental clarifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:54:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90755</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the process undertaken did not amount to manufacturing new marketable products subject to duty. The Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and penalty, allowing the appeal based on the finding that the engraved nickel cylinders were not new products and thus not liable for duty. The decision was supported by interpretations of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and departmental clarifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>