<?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>2005 (11) TMI 114 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54633</link>
    <description>Crushing old rubber into crumb rubber powder was treated as a mere change in physical form, not a process that created a new commodity with a distinct commercial or chemical identity. The note applies the principle that manufacture requires emergence of a commercially different product, and that tariff classification alone cannot establish duty liability. It also records that earlier binding decisions in the assessee&#039;s own case had already held the powder was obtained only by crushing, with no new product emerging. On that reasoning, the process was held not to amount to manufacture and duty could not be sustained without proof of manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:09:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 114 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54633</link>
      <description>Crushing old rubber into crumb rubber powder was treated as a mere change in physical form, not a process that created a new commodity with a distinct commercial or chemical identity. The note applies the principle that manufacture requires emergence of a commercially different product, and that tariff classification alone cannot establish duty liability. It also records that earlier binding decisions in the assessee&#039;s own case had already held the powder was obtained only by crushing, with no new product emerging. On that reasoning, the process was held not to amount to manufacture and duty could not be sustained without proof of manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>