<?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 466 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94707</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the processes undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, excise duty was not leviable on stock rails and tongue rails. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed, and the question of the extended period of limitation was not addressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:00:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 466 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94707</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the processes undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, excise duty was not leviable on stock rails and tongue rails. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed, and the question of the extended period of limitation was not addressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>