<?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>2003 (3) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51904</link>
    <description>Assembling and fixing aluminium glass curtain wall panels can amount to manufacture where the process brings into existence a distinct commercial product with a new name, character or use; the appellant was treated as the manufacturer because it undertook the work with its own tools and contractual arrangements beyond mere labour supply, even though another agency applied sealant. A demand beyond the normal limitation period could not rely on the extended period where there was bona fide doubt on manufacture and no clear suppression. Consequential penalties could not survive, while confiscation remained possible with reduced redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:43:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51904</link>
      <description>Assembling and fixing aluminium glass curtain wall panels can amount to manufacture where the process brings into existence a distinct commercial product with a new name, character or use; the appellant was treated as the manufacturer because it undertook the work with its own tools and contractual arrangements beyond mere labour supply, even though another agency applied sealant. A demand beyond the normal limitation period could not rely on the extended period where there was bona fide doubt on manufacture and no clear suppression. Consequential penalties could not survive, while confiscation remained possible with reduced redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>