<?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>2005 (10) TMI 539 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172740</link>
    <description>Processing that transforms supplied materials into a new commercially distinct product constitutes manufacture, even if title in the inputs remains with the customer; on that basis, the unit&#039;s conversion activity was treated as manufacture rather than mere job work. A 100% Export Oriented Unit may make domestic tariff area clearances within the policy framework when the goods are manufactured in the unit, and duty could not be demanded on the footing that the clearances were outside the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the substantive duty demand failed, the related interest, penalty and confiscation were also unsustainable. The appeals succeeded and the impugned liabilities were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:34:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 539 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172740</link>
      <description>Processing that transforms supplied materials into a new commercially distinct product constitutes manufacture, even if title in the inputs remains with the customer; on that basis, the unit&#039;s conversion activity was treated as manufacture rather than mere job work. A 100% Export Oriented Unit may make domestic tariff area clearances within the policy framework when the goods are manufactured in the unit, and duty could not be demanded on the footing that the clearances were outside the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the substantive duty demand failed, the related interest, penalty and confiscation were also unsustainable. The appeals succeeded and the impugned liabilities were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>