<?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>2006 (1) TMI 419 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117639</link>
    <description>Drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture where the governing precedent and departmental circular recognise the process as non-manufacturing, so no duty liability arises on that activity. A demand based on stock shortage worked out only by eye estimate, without actual physical weighment or reliable verification, is unsustainable. On both grounds, the demand failed and the impugned order was set aside in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:01:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 419 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117639</link>
      <description>Drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture where the governing precedent and departmental circular recognise the process as non-manufacturing, so no duty liability arises on that activity. A demand based on stock shortage worked out only by eye estimate, without actual physical weighment or reliable verification, is unsustainable. On both grounds, the demand failed and the impugned order was set aside in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>