<?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>2023 (11) TMI 255 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445364</link>
    <description>High security registration plates and windshield stickers cleared from Himachal Pradesh remained the same commodity after embossing in Rajasthan, because the later numbering did not change their identity, character, use, or composition. The embossing and data entry at the ESO were only correlating steps and did not bring into existence a new commercially distinct product, so manufacture was complete at the Himachal Pradesh factory. As a result, the goods retained area-based exemption eligibility, the excise duty demand based on manufacture in Rajasthan failed, and the extended period of limitation was not available because the relevant facts were disclosed and suppression was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2023 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 255 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445364</link>
      <description>High security registration plates and windshield stickers cleared from Himachal Pradesh remained the same commodity after embossing in Rajasthan, because the later numbering did not change their identity, character, use, or composition. The embossing and data entry at the ESO were only correlating steps and did not bring into existence a new commercially distinct product, so manufacture was complete at the Himachal Pradesh factory. As a result, the goods retained area-based exemption eligibility, the excise duty demand based on manufacture in Rajasthan failed, and the extended period of limitation was not available because the relevant facts were disclosed and suppression was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>