<?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>2024 (3) TMI 980 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451199</link>
    <description>Crushing, pulverising, heating and chemical treatment of fuller&#039;s earth was treated as manufacture because the process changed the material&#039;s character, properties and commercial use, producing a distinct marketable product with enhanced adsorption and bleaching qualities classifiable as activated bleaching earth. The concurrent findings that the product was cleared under a different description supported excisability and were not disturbed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the records and invoices disclosed the nature of manufacture while the product was described differently, justifying duty, penalty and interest; confiscation and the director&#039;s penalty were left aside as recorded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 980 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451199</link>
      <description>Crushing, pulverising, heating and chemical treatment of fuller&#039;s earth was treated as manufacture because the process changed the material&#039;s character, properties and commercial use, producing a distinct marketable product with enhanced adsorption and bleaching qualities classifiable as activated bleaching earth. The concurrent findings that the product was cleared under a different description supported excisability and were not disturbed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the records and invoices disclosed the nature of manufacture while the product was described differently, justifying duty, penalty and interest; confiscation and the director&#039;s penalty were left aside as recorded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>