<?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>2008 (7) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123823</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision that pulverising polyethylene into powder does not amount to manufacture, leading to no emergence of a distinct commercial commodity. The respondent was found not to be engaged in manufacturing the product, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal supported the decision, emphasizing the importance of the manufacturing issue in determining duty/excisability, in line with the ITC Ltd. decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:09:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123823</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision that pulverising polyethylene into powder does not amount to manufacture, leading to no emergence of a distinct commercial commodity. The respondent was found not to be engaged in manufacturing the product, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal supported the decision, emphasizing the importance of the manufacturing issue in determining duty/excisability, in line with the ITC Ltd. decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>