<?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 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51716</link>
    <description>Reeling and rewinding of purchased thread was held not to amount to manufacture for tariff purposes because the appellate authority found no process beyond reeling and rewinding, the Revenue produced no evidence of any additional manufacturing activity, and no Chapter 55 note treated that process as manufacture. On that basis, the tariff demand could not be sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:52:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51716</link>
      <description>Reeling and rewinding of purchased thread was held not to amount to manufacture for tariff purposes because the appellate authority found no process beyond reeling and rewinding, the Revenue produced no evidence of any additional manufacturing activity, and no Chapter 55 note treated that process as manufacture. On that basis, the tariff demand could not be sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>