<?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 (6) TMI 1142 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362315</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision that the appellant&#039;s processes amount to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Excise Act. Consequently, the products are liable for excise duty. The tribunal also upheld the classification under Tariff Item 4818 2000 and the applicability of &quot;deemed manufacture.&quot; The demand for excise duty, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1142 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362315</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision that the appellant&#039;s processes amount to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Excise Act. Consequently, the products are liable for excise duty. The tribunal also upheld the classification under Tariff Item 4818 2000 and the applicability of &quot;deemed manufacture.&quot; The demand for excise duty, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>