<?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>2004 (10) TMI 411 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114540</link>
    <description>Crushing, pulverising, heating and chemical treatment of Fullers Earth was treated as manufacture because the process gave the material a distinct commercial identity and functional utility as Activated Bleaching Earth, classifiable under Chapter Heading 3802. Misdeclaration of the modified product as Fullers Earth justified duty demand and invocation of the extended limitation period, with penalty and interest upheld for eligible clearances. Confiscation of plant and machinery was not sustained on the facts, and the penalty on the Director was set aside. The appeals succeeded only to this limited extent, while the core finding of manufacture and duty liability remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:10:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 411 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114540</link>
      <description>Crushing, pulverising, heating and chemical treatment of Fullers Earth was treated as manufacture because the process gave the material a distinct commercial identity and functional utility as Activated Bleaching Earth, classifiable under Chapter Heading 3802. Misdeclaration of the modified product as Fullers Earth justified duty demand and invocation of the extended limitation period, with penalty and interest upheld for eligible clearances. Confiscation of plant and machinery was not sustained on the facts, and the penalty on the Director was set aside. The appeals succeeded only to this limited extent, while the core finding of manufacture and duty liability remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>