<?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>1986 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72400</link>
    <description>Equipment supplied for site-specific dewatering installations was treated as a variable collection of components, not a single ready-made excisable product, so the assumption that the assessee manufactured complete dewatering systems was unsustainable and was set aside. Because that premise failed, the composite duty demand based on the total value of goods, including duty-paid items, could not stand, and the confiscation fine was also set aside as consequential. The question whether particular items were independently dutiable or covered by exemption notifications was left open for fresh determination by the excise authorities after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 12:25:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72400</link>
      <description>Equipment supplied for site-specific dewatering installations was treated as a variable collection of components, not a single ready-made excisable product, so the assumption that the assessee manufactured complete dewatering systems was unsustainable and was set aside. Because that premise failed, the composite duty demand based on the total value of goods, including duty-paid items, could not stand, and the confiscation fine was also set aside as consequential. The question whether particular items were independently dutiable or covered by exemption notifications was left open for fresh determination by the excise authorities after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>