<?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>1989 (10) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80184</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of M/s. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd., finding no duty liability on goods manufactured and cleared by them. It was held that goods fabricated on-site did not attract excise duty as they did not constitute excisable goods but rather immovable property. The Tribunal also ruled that the appellants were not liable for duty on goods fabricated by independent contractors, rejecting the Collector&#039;s interpretation. The issue of proper jurisdiction for action on duty evasion was settled in favor of the appellants, and the limitation period for demanding duty was deemed moot as no duty liability was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80184</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of M/s. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd., finding no duty liability on goods manufactured and cleared by them. It was held that goods fabricated on-site did not attract excise duty as they did not constitute excisable goods but rather immovable property. The Tribunal also ruled that the appellants were not liable for duty on goods fabricated by independent contractors, rejecting the Collector&#039;s interpretation. The issue of proper jurisdiction for action on duty evasion was settled in favor of the appellants, and the limitation period for demanding duty was deemed moot as no duty liability was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>