<?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>1985 (8) TMI 362 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167459</link>
    <description>Grinding soapstone lumps into soapstone powder was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use, making the powder exigible to duty. The limitation plea failed because the absence of licence, declarations and departmental intimation supported suppression, so the extended period under Rule 9(2) applied. For small-scale exemption, turnover was required to be computed on the full value of clearances, not merely job charges, because the notifications did not permit substitution of the goods&#039; value. Freight, sales tax, octroi and packing deductions were disallowed on the facts, and the exemption claims failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:55:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 362 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167459</link>
      <description>Grinding soapstone lumps into soapstone powder was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use, making the powder exigible to duty. The limitation plea failed because the absence of licence, declarations and departmental intimation supported suppression, so the extended period under Rule 9(2) applied. For small-scale exemption, turnover was required to be computed on the full value of clearances, not merely job charges, because the notifications did not permit substitution of the goods&#039; value. Freight, sales tax, octroi and packing deductions were disallowed on the facts, and the exemption claims failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>