<?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>2000 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93455</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, held that the fabrication activities involving cutting, welding, and shaping of steel plates and angles constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; under Central Excise law. The transformation of raw materials into a new product with distinct characteristics attracts duty liability. The tribunal rejected the argument that the original products&#039; identity remains unchanged during fabrication. Due to the appellant&#039;s failure to obtain a Central Excise license and provide essential information, the larger period for duty assessment was justified. The appeal was dismissed, affirming duty liability for the manufacturing activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:00:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93455</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, held that the fabrication activities involving cutting, welding, and shaping of steel plates and angles constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; under Central Excise law. The transformation of raw materials into a new product with distinct characteristics attracts duty liability. The tribunal rejected the argument that the original products&#039; identity remains unchanged during fabrication. Due to the appellant&#039;s failure to obtain a Central Excise license and provide essential information, the larger period for duty assessment was justified. The appeal was dismissed, affirming duty liability for the manufacturing activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>