<?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 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51638</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., holding that the aluminium doors and windows were not manufactured at the basement, the processes did not amount to manufacture, and the products were not excisable goods. Consequently, the demand for duty and the imposition of penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:26:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 126 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51638</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., holding that the aluminium doors and windows were not manufactured at the basement, the processes did not amount to manufacture, and the products were not excisable goods. Consequently, the demand for duty and the imposition of penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>