<?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>2002 (1) TMI 115 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51099</link>
    <description>Jurisdictional objections to the issuance of a show cause notice were treated as barred where the assessee received the notice, participated in adjudication, and did not object before the adjudicating authority, amounting to acquiescence. Fabricated trusses, purlins and similar structurals made from steel sheets, angles and channels through cutting, drilling and welding were regarded as commercially distinct articles and therefore as manufacture under excise law. Excisability could not be finally upheld, however, because no finding had been recorded on marketability. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of excisability, limitation, cum-duty valuation and credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:26:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 115 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51099</link>
      <description>Jurisdictional objections to the issuance of a show cause notice were treated as barred where the assessee received the notice, participated in adjudication, and did not object before the adjudicating authority, amounting to acquiescence. Fabricated trusses, purlins and similar structurals made from steel sheets, angles and channels through cutting, drilling and welding were regarded as commercially distinct articles and therefore as manufacture under excise law. Excisability could not be finally upheld, however, because no finding had been recorded on marketability. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of excisability, limitation, cum-duty valuation and credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>