<?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 (9) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72576</link>
    <description>Power transmission work was treated as outside the tariff concept of a &quot;power project&quot; because the entry was confined to projects involving generation of electricity, not evacuation or dispersal of power already generated. A transport vehicle used to carry transformers to site was construed strictly as transport material, not &quot;auxiliary equipment&quot; directly employed in setting up the project. The project-import scheme also required a nexus with one specified project, so a vehicle imported for use across multiple transmission sub-stations did not qualify. On that basis, the imported vehicle failed to meet the conditions for project-import treatment and the contract registration was upheld as refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 15:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72576</link>
      <description>Power transmission work was treated as outside the tariff concept of a &quot;power project&quot; because the entry was confined to projects involving generation of electricity, not evacuation or dispersal of power already generated. A transport vehicle used to carry transformers to site was construed strictly as transport material, not &quot;auxiliary equipment&quot; directly employed in setting up the project. The project-import scheme also required a nexus with one specified project, so a vehicle imported for use across multiple transmission sub-stations did not qualify. On that basis, the imported vehicle failed to meet the conditions for project-import treatment and the contract registration was upheld as refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>