<?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>2002 (8) TMI 643 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106660</link>
    <description>Drawing M.S. round bars through a narrower diameter to produce bright bars was held not to constitute manufacture because a process amounts to manufacture only when it creates a commercially distinct and different commodity. Mere change in form or shape is insufficient without evidence that the goods are regarded as different in the commercial market. On that reasoning, bright bars were not treated as a new excisable product, and the excise duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:42:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 643 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106660</link>
      <description>Drawing M.S. round bars through a narrower diameter to produce bright bars was held not to constitute manufacture because a process amounts to manufacture only when it creates a commercially distinct and different commodity. Mere change in form or shape is insufficient without evidence that the goods are regarded as different in the commercial market. On that reasoning, bright bars were not treated as a new excisable product, and the excise duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>