<?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>2018 (3) TMI 167 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356464</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, entitling them to avail Cenvat credit on engines, pumps, and base frames. The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s process of aligning, testing, and inspecting the parts resulted in a new marketable product, meeting the criteria for manufacture under the Central Excise Tariff Act. Despite differing opinions among Tribunal members on specific activities, the matter was referred to the Hon&#039;ble President for resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:00:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 167 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356464</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture, entitling them to avail Cenvat credit on engines, pumps, and base frames. The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s process of aligning, testing, and inspecting the parts resulted in a new marketable product, meeting the criteria for manufacture under the Central Excise Tariff Act. Despite differing opinions among Tribunal members on specific activities, the matter was referred to the Hon&#039;ble President for resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>