<?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>Appellant&#039;s Activities on Items Deemed Manufacture Under Excise Law; PVD Process Essential for Usability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82698</link>
    <description>The appellant undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like &quot;EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM&quot;, the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like &quot;BOTTLE TRAP&quot; and &quot;FLOOR DRAIN&quot;, the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court&#039;s ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential fo.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:32:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:32:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant&#039;s Activities on Items Deemed Manufacture Under Excise Law; PVD Process Essential for Usability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82698</link>
      <description>The appellant undertook several activities on bought-out items, raising the issue of whether these processes amounted to manufacture liable for excise duty. For certain finished products like &quot;EOLIA SHOWER ONLY TRIM&quot;, the activities performed transformed individual parts into a complete product with a distinct identity, end-use, and nomenclature, amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding items like &quot;BOTTLE TRAP&quot; and &quot;FLOOR DRAIN&quot;, the appellant claimed the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process merely changed color and made products rust-free, not constituting manufacture. However, applying the Supreme Court&#039;s ratio in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JG. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., the PVD process was found essential fo.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:32:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>