<?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 (12) TMI 223 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351954</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the activities of cutting, drilling, punching, and welding on steel items do not amount to manufacture. It ruled that the value of bought-out items should not be included in the assessable value and that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules was not applicable. Additionally, no penalty was imposed on the appellant as there was no suppression of facts. Consequently, the demands were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 223 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351954</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the activities of cutting, drilling, punching, and welding on steel items do not amount to manufacture. It ruled that the value of bought-out items should not be included in the assessable value and that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules was not applicable. Additionally, no penalty was imposed on the appellant as there was no suppression of facts. Consequently, the demands were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>