<?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 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72993</link>
    <description>Machining operations such as drilling, shaping and milling can transform castings into identifiable machine parts, taking the goods out of Tariff Item 25 and into Tariff Item 68. Exemption under Notifications No. 89/79 and 105/80 had to be examined with reference to the unit actually carrying out the machining, rather than by aggregating the plant and machinery value of separate factories, so the exemption issue was remitted for unit-wise reconsideration. The extended limitation period was not available because the department had knowledge of the nature of the goods and the machining activity, so suppression was not established. Penalty was therefore not sustained on the existing findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 14:20:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72993</link>
      <description>Machining operations such as drilling, shaping and milling can transform castings into identifiable machine parts, taking the goods out of Tariff Item 25 and into Tariff Item 68. Exemption under Notifications No. 89/79 and 105/80 had to be examined with reference to the unit actually carrying out the machining, rather than by aggregating the plant and machinery value of separate factories, so the exemption issue was remitted for unit-wise reconsideration. The extended limitation period was not available because the department had knowledge of the nature of the goods and the machining activity, so suppression was not established. Penalty was therefore not sustained on the existing findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>