<?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 511 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252377</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that cutting paper into smaller sizes does not amount to &#039;manufacture,&#039; maintaining the classification of the product under CETH 4802 90/99 even after cutting. The appellant was found not liable for duty on this process, as it was determined that no new product emerged from the activity of cutting paper into desired sizes. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 511 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252377</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that cutting paper into smaller sizes does not amount to &#039;manufacture,&#039; maintaining the classification of the product under CETH 4802 90/99 even after cutting. The appellant was found not liable for duty on this process, as it was determined that no new product emerged from the activity of cutting paper into desired sizes. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>