<?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>2000 (2) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48768</link>
    <description>Repacking aluminium paste into smaller containers and combining it with aluminium medium in a common carton, in prescribed proportions for sale as aluminium paint, was treated as manufacture because the process was incidental or ancillary to completion of the final marketable product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal also stated that Note 2 to Section VI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 governed classification of goods put up in sets and did not by itself decide manufacture. On that basis, the activity was liable to central excise duty as aluminium paint, while Modvat credit was held available on eligible inputs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:51:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48768</link>
      <description>Repacking aluminium paste into smaller containers and combining it with aluminium medium in a common carton, in prescribed proportions for sale as aluminium paint, was treated as manufacture because the process was incidental or ancillary to completion of the final marketable product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal also stated that Note 2 to Section VI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 governed classification of goods put up in sets and did not by itself decide manufacture. On that basis, the activity was liable to central excise duty as aluminium paint, while Modvat credit was held available on eligible inputs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>