<?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 (7) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119806</link>
    <description>No prima facie basis was shown to treat the appellants as manufacturers of towels and bed sheets, because they had no manufacturing facility, infrastructure, or manpower and the record did not support actual production by them. The departmental notifications invoked to fasten liability were prima facie inapplicable to a person without a manufacturing setup, and the demand also rested on an expansive reading of &quot;manufacture&quot; under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the goods falling under Chapter 63 and the relevant period lacking a deeming provision. On that basis, a strong prima facie case existed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and the duty and penalty were kept in abeyance pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:42:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119806</link>
      <description>No prima facie basis was shown to treat the appellants as manufacturers of towels and bed sheets, because they had no manufacturing facility, infrastructure, or manpower and the record did not support actual production by them. The departmental notifications invoked to fasten liability were prima facie inapplicable to a person without a manufacturing setup, and the demand also rested on an expansive reading of &quot;manufacture&quot; under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the goods falling under Chapter 63 and the relevant period lacking a deeming provision. On that basis, a strong prima facie case existed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and the duty and penalty were kept in abeyance pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>