<?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 (10) TMI 404 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95016</link>
    <description>Reshelling rollers used in sugar mills was treated as not amounting to manufacture under the Central Excise Act because the adjudicating authority had followed a binding Board circular, and departmental officers could not take a contrary view without supersession of that circular. The alleged shell was also found to be only an intermediate product, not separately ordered or sold, and no material was produced to show commercial marketability. The analysis further noted the relevance of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. and the Board circular dated 1-7-1996. The departmental appeal was rejected and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:30:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 404 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95016</link>
      <description>Reshelling rollers used in sugar mills was treated as not amounting to manufacture under the Central Excise Act because the adjudicating authority had followed a binding Board circular, and departmental officers could not take a contrary view without supersession of that circular. The alleged shell was also found to be only an intermediate product, not separately ordered or sold, and no material was produced to show commercial marketability. The analysis further noted the relevance of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. and the Board circular dated 1-7-1996. The departmental appeal was rejected and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>