<?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 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95156</link>
    <description>Switch expansion joints were examined for excisability and whether the process applied to them amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal noted that the same product and process had already been considered in an earlier decision, and, in view of that settled position and the concession recorded for the Revenue, the matter did not call for fresh reconsideration on merits. The assessee succeeded on the question of excisability of switch expansion joints.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95156</link>
      <description>Switch expansion joints were examined for excisability and whether the process applied to them amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal noted that the same product and process had already been considered in an earlier decision, and, in view of that settled position and the concession recorded for the Revenue, the matter did not call for fresh reconsideration on merits. The assessee succeeded on the question of excisability of switch expansion joints.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>