<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1000 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340497</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the lamination of HDPE woven fabrics by LDPE did not amount to manufacturing a new product subject to Central Excise duty. The appeals were allowed, and the confiscation of the laminated HDPE fabrics was overturned. The decision was based on the analysis of the lamination process, legal definitions, and Supreme Court precedents, determining that the lamination did not result in the creation of a distinct product.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 18:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1000 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340497</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the lamination of HDPE woven fabrics by LDPE did not amount to manufacturing a new product subject to Central Excise duty. The appeals were allowed, and the confiscation of the laminated HDPE fabrics was overturned. The decision was based on the analysis of the lamination process, legal definitions, and Supreme Court precedents, determining that the lamination did not result in the creation of a distinct product.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>