<?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>2014 (10) TMI 161 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252027</link>
    <description>Diluting concentrated sulphuric acid with demineralised water to produce a marketable, battery-useable product was treated as manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act because the process resulted in a distinct product covered by the relevant tariff chapter notes. The activity therefore attracted excise registration and duty, with corresponding Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs for the relevant period. On penalty, section 11AC was not applied because the dispute centered on legal interpretation of manufacture rather than conduct justifying that statutory penalty, although the separate penalty under rule 27 was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 161 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252027</link>
      <description>Diluting concentrated sulphuric acid with demineralised water to produce a marketable, battery-useable product was treated as manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act because the process resulted in a distinct product covered by the relevant tariff chapter notes. The activity therefore attracted excise registration and duty, with corresponding Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs for the relevant period. On penalty, section 11AC was not applied because the dispute centered on legal interpretation of manufacture rather than conduct justifying that statutory penalty, although the separate penalty under rule 27 was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>