<?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>1990 (6) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80684</link>
    <description>For computing capital investment under a small scale industry exemption notification, plant and machinery permanently removed from use is excluded, and supervision and technical know-how charges are not part of plant and machinery. Departmental SSI certificates and guidelines were entitled to due weight, and the record did not show that the disputed civil works necessarily formed part of plant and machinery. After excluding the dismantled driers and other non-qualifying items, and correcting arithmetical errors, the investment remained below the exemption ceiling, so the assessee qualified for the exemption and the demand could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:27:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80684</link>
      <description>For computing capital investment under a small scale industry exemption notification, plant and machinery permanently removed from use is excluded, and supervision and technical know-how charges are not part of plant and machinery. Departmental SSI certificates and guidelines were entitled to due weight, and the record did not show that the disputed civil works necessarily formed part of plant and machinery. After excluding the dismantled driers and other non-qualifying items, and correcting arithmetical errors, the investment remained below the exemption ceiling, so the assessee qualified for the exemption and the demand could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>