<?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>2007 (6) TMI 11 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1604</link>
    <description>Cold rolling of hot rolled stainless steel pattas/pattis by reduction of gauge was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 72 because it caused strain hardening, reduced thickness, changed mechanical properties and produced a distinct excisable product. On that basis, duty and interest were sustained, and penalties also followed where the goods moved without central excise invoices and the sender units were aware of their excisable character; extended limitation was applied. The majority, however, did not uphold confiscation of land, building and machinery, considering that relief excessive. A dissenting view stated that thickness reduction alone, without proof of hardening or tempering at the premises, would not amount to manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 11 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1604</link>
      <description>Cold rolling of hot rolled stainless steel pattas/pattis by reduction of gauge was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 72 because it caused strain hardening, reduced thickness, changed mechanical properties and produced a distinct excisable product. On that basis, duty and interest were sustained, and penalties also followed where the goods moved without central excise invoices and the sender units were aware of their excisable character; extended limitation was applied. The majority, however, did not uphold confiscation of land, building and machinery, considering that relief excessive. A dissenting view stated that thickness reduction alone, without proof of hardening or tempering at the premises, would not amount to manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>