<?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 (6) TMI 52 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48825</link>
    <description>Ammonium nitrate obtained by processing crude lumps, damaged calcium ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate melt was treated as manufactured goods for central excise purposes because the process of mixing with water, removing impurities, adding aluminium bicarbonate, evaporating water and grinding crystals produced a commercially distinct and independently marketable product. Applying the settled test of manufacture, the Tribunal found that the product had a different name, character and use from the inputs and was therefore excisable under Chapter Heading 31.02. The contrary view in Anil Chemicals was rejected, and the view in IDL Chemicals was approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:41:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 52 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48825</link>
      <description>Ammonium nitrate obtained by processing crude lumps, damaged calcium ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate melt was treated as manufactured goods for central excise purposes because the process of mixing with water, removing impurities, adding aluminium bicarbonate, evaporating water and grinding crystals produced a commercially distinct and independently marketable product. Applying the settled test of manufacture, the Tribunal found that the product had a different name, character and use from the inputs and was therefore excisable under Chapter Heading 31.02. The contrary view in Anil Chemicals was rejected, and the view in IDL Chemicals was approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>