<?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>1983 (6) TMI 192 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166212</link>
    <description>Scrap generated unavoidably during the melting and casting of scrap into steel ingots and castings was treated as remaining under the same tariff classification as the original scrap. On that basis, no new and distinct product emerged, so the process did not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise law. As the duty demand was unsupported once manufacture failed, the related penalty also could not stand, and the other objections were left unexamined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:50:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (6) TMI 192 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166212</link>
      <description>Scrap generated unavoidably during the melting and casting of scrap into steel ingots and castings was treated as remaining under the same tariff classification as the original scrap. On that basis, no new and distinct product emerged, so the process did not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise law. As the duty demand was unsupported once manufacture failed, the related penalty also could not stand, and the other objections were left unexamined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>