<?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 (11) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34022</link>
    <description>Conversion of steel black bars into bright bars was treated as not amounting to manufacture because a mere change in form or shape does not create a new commercially distinct commodity. On that basis, the duty demand failed, and the related denial of Modvat credit and levy of interest also fell away because they depended on the same unsustainable classification of the activity. The consequential penalties could not survive once the underlying demands were found untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34022</link>
      <description>Conversion of steel black bars into bright bars was treated as not amounting to manufacture because a mere change in form or shape does not create a new commercially distinct commodity. On that basis, the duty demand failed, and the related denial of Modvat credit and levy of interest also fell away because they depended on the same unsustainable classification of the activity. The consequential penalties could not survive once the underlying demands were found untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>