<?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>2008 (4) TMI 105 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30350</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, ruling that the process undertaken by the Respondents, involving drilling holes and cutting materials, did not amount to manufacturing. The items retained their original form and purpose after processing, with no new manufacturing process involved. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals, emphasizing that the process did not result in the creation of new, distinct products.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 105 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30350</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, ruling that the process undertaken by the Respondents, involving drilling holes and cutting materials, did not amount to manufacturing. The items retained their original form and purpose after processing, with no new manufacturing process involved. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals, emphasizing that the process did not result in the creation of new, distinct products.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>