<?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>1994 (4) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43901</link>
    <description>Soap treatment of grey cotton duck or canvas used for wrapping rubberised cloth in tyre manufacture was not a manufacturing process. Dipping the fabric in a soap solution with colour and water, followed by drying, did not alter the cloth&#039;s identity or create a new and marketable product. The treatment was only a temporary impregnation and did not produce a permanent transformation capable of amounting to manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:32:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43901</link>
      <description>Soap treatment of grey cotton duck or canvas used for wrapping rubberised cloth in tyre manufacture was not a manufacturing process. Dipping the fabric in a soap solution with colour and water, followed by drying, did not alter the cloth&#039;s identity or create a new and marketable product. The treatment was only a temporary impregnation and did not produce a permanent transformation capable of amounting to manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>