<?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>2022 (8) TMI 163 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425924</link>
    <description>Cleaning and reprocessing waste oil, used oil and sludge by filtering, distillation, dehydration and centrifuging did not amount to manufacture because the process only removed impurities and no new and distinct commodity emerged. Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 was inapplicable because the goods were reclaimed fuel oil, not lubricating oil or lubricating preparations, and there was no evidence of labelling, re-labelling, re-packing or similar treatment. The duty demand, penalties and departmental classification therefore failed. Prior departmental knowledge of the activity meant no suppression of facts was shown, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 163 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425924</link>
      <description>Cleaning and reprocessing waste oil, used oil and sludge by filtering, distillation, dehydration and centrifuging did not amount to manufacture because the process only removed impurities and no new and distinct commodity emerged. Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 was inapplicable because the goods were reclaimed fuel oil, not lubricating oil or lubricating preparations, and there was no evidence of labelling, re-labelling, re-packing or similar treatment. The duty demand, penalties and departmental classification therefore failed. Prior departmental knowledge of the activity meant no suppression of facts was shown, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>