<?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 (10) TMI 51 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2953</link>
    <description>Where cotton yarn was converted into towels and bed linens by independent job workers using their own infrastructure and without the appellants&#039; control or superintendence, the appellants were not treated as manufacturers of the finished goods. Later activities such as knotting, labelling, branding and packing only improved marketability and did not by themselves amount to manufacture. On that basis, the clearances could not be clubbed to deny SSI exemption on the footing adopted by the department, since that objection depended on treating the appellants as the manufacturers. The duty demands, penalties and interest were therefore not sustainable, and the assessees&#039; appeals succeeded while the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 51 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2953</link>
      <description>Where cotton yarn was converted into towels and bed linens by independent job workers using their own infrastructure and without the appellants&#039; control or superintendence, the appellants were not treated as manufacturers of the finished goods. Later activities such as knotting, labelling, branding and packing only improved marketability and did not by themselves amount to manufacture. On that basis, the clearances could not be clubbed to deny SSI exemption on the footing adopted by the department, since that objection depended on treating the appellants as the manufacturers. The duty demands, penalties and interest were therefore not sustainable, and the assessees&#039; appeals succeeded while the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>