<?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>2025 (10) TMI 610 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779814</link>
    <description>Processing laminated or metallised plastic sheets into customer-specific packing material by layering, bonding, slitting and cutting can amount to manufacture where the result has a distinct commercial identity, use and character. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and related CENVAT credit were held available, since the denial was founded only on the absence of manufacture. Revenue was also held bound by its earlier accepted position on the same controversy, and recovery notices for alleged wrongly availed self-credit were held not maintainable where the underlying assessment or self-assessment orders had not been challenged through the proper statutory route. Self-credit on returned goods re-made and cleared on payment of duty was also upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 610 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779814</link>
      <description>Processing laminated or metallised plastic sheets into customer-specific packing material by layering, bonding, slitting and cutting can amount to manufacture where the result has a distinct commercial identity, use and character. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and related CENVAT credit were held available, since the denial was founded only on the absence of manufacture. Revenue was also held bound by its earlier accepted position on the same controversy, and recovery notices for alleged wrongly availed self-credit were held not maintainable where the underlying assessment or self-assessment orders had not been challenged through the proper statutory route. Self-credit on returned goods re-made and cleared on payment of duty was also upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>