<?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>1992 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82291</link>
    <description>Equipment integrally connected with production is includible in the value of plant and machinery for exemption-limit purposes. A crane used to move and lift granite slabs during manufacturing, and admitted to have increased production, was treated as part of the plant and machinery rather than an excluded accessory. As the additional machinery pushed the undertaking beyond the prescribed ceiling and the installation was not disclosed, the duty demand was justified. Concealment also supported penalty, but the penalty was moderated in the interests of justice. The commentary states that machinery contributing to the manufacturing process must be counted when testing eligibility under a value-based exemption notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82291</link>
      <description>Equipment integrally connected with production is includible in the value of plant and machinery for exemption-limit purposes. A crane used to move and lift granite slabs during manufacturing, and admitted to have increased production, was treated as part of the plant and machinery rather than an excluded accessory. As the additional machinery pushed the undertaking beyond the prescribed ceiling and the installation was not disclosed, the duty demand was justified. Concealment also supported penalty, but the penalty was moderated in the interests of justice. The commentary states that machinery contributing to the manufacturing process must be counted when testing eligibility under a value-based exemption notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>