<?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 (5) TMI 151 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51469</link>
    <description>Castings subjected only to heat treatment, shot blasting and grinding/fettling remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. because the notification permitted limited processes and did not exclude goods merely for being made to customer specifications or capable of use as finished goods. The record did not show any machining or any grinding beyond removal of excess material, and the Revenue failed to disprove that the processing stayed within the permitted stage. The principle applied was that castings do not lose that character merely because they undergo limited processing before becoming identifiable machine parts, so denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:48:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 151 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51469</link>
      <description>Castings subjected only to heat treatment, shot blasting and grinding/fettling remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. because the notification permitted limited processes and did not exclude goods merely for being made to customer specifications or capable of use as finished goods. The record did not show any machining or any grinding beyond removal of excess material, and the Revenue failed to disprove that the processing stayed within the permitted stage. The principle applied was that castings do not lose that character merely because they undergo limited processing before becoming identifiable machine parts, so denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>