<?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>1987 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72815</link>
    <description>Oxygen gas conveyed from the appellants&#039; plant through a pipeline to another unit was not treated as &quot;compressed gas&quot; for Central Excise purposes under Item 14. The controlling principle applied was that compressed gas is gas compressed into a container at a specified pressure for storage, handling, and transport, not gas moving through a pipeline in plant conditions only slightly above atmospheric pressure. Relying on earlier Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court view referred to therein, the gas was held not liable to duty in the appellants&#039; hands at the stage it left their premises. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the duty-confirming order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 12:29:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72815</link>
      <description>Oxygen gas conveyed from the appellants&#039; plant through a pipeline to another unit was not treated as &quot;compressed gas&quot; for Central Excise purposes under Item 14. The controlling principle applied was that compressed gas is gas compressed into a container at a specified pressure for storage, handling, and transport, not gas moving through a pipeline in plant conditions only slightly above atmospheric pressure. Relying on earlier Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court view referred to therein, the gas was held not liable to duty in the appellants&#039; hands at the stage it left their premises. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the duty-confirming order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>