<?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>2001 (5) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96197</link>
    <description>Drawing wire from wire rods by reducing thickness was treated as non-manufacture, because earlier Tribunal decisions had already held that the process did not bring about a new product and that view had been followed in later authority. The issue was considered settled in favour of the assessee, and no reason was found to depart from those precedents. Accordingly, the process did not amount to manufacture and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:49:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96197</link>
      <description>Drawing wire from wire rods by reducing thickness was treated as non-manufacture, because earlier Tribunal decisions had already held that the process did not bring about a new product and that view had been followed in later authority. The issue was considered settled in favour of the assessee, and no reason was found to depart from those precedents. Accordingly, the process did not amount to manufacture and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>