<?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 (12) TMI 368 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446684</link>
    <description>Galvanizing of goods under Chapter 72 did not amount to manufacture during the impugned period because the statutory amendment treating galvanization as manufacture applied only from 08.04.2011 under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2011. As that amendment did not cover the relevant period, the activity remained outside the scope of manufacture for excise purposes, and no excise duty was payable on it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 368 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446684</link>
      <description>Galvanizing of goods under Chapter 72 did not amount to manufacture during the impugned period because the statutory amendment treating galvanization as manufacture applied only from 08.04.2011 under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2011. As that amendment did not cover the relevant period, the activity remained outside the scope of manufacture for excise purposes, and no excise duty was payable on it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>