<?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 (12) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107041</link>
    <description>Processes such as punching, bending and fitting amount to manufacture only if they create a commercially distinct product or complete an unfinished article into a finished one. On that test, processing of carline and bottom side wall sheet was treated as manufacture because a new commercial product emerged, while work on outer door assembly was not manufacture because the article remained incomplete and later drilling and threading were still required. On limitation, the extended period could not be used where the Department already knew of the free-supply materials, though it remained available for the earlier period not covered by that knowledge. Penalty was left open for adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107041</link>
      <description>Processes such as punching, bending and fitting amount to manufacture only if they create a commercially distinct product or complete an unfinished article into a finished one. On that test, processing of carline and bottom side wall sheet was treated as manufacture because a new commercial product emerged, while work on outer door assembly was not manufacture because the article remained incomplete and later drilling and threading were still required. On limitation, the extended period could not be used where the Department already knew of the free-supply materials, though it remained available for the earlier period not covered by that knowledge. Penalty was left open for adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>