<?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>1993 (9) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83006</link>
    <description>Electricity Board liability for excise turned on whether independent contractors manufacturing pre-stressed concrete poles could be treated as the Board&#039;s own manufacturing units. The contract terms showed that the contractors set up and operated their own factories, engaged their own staff, used their own plant and machinery, and procured materials other than cement, while the Board only supplied cement and supervised quality. In the absence of evidence that the units were dummy concerns or that the arrangements were not on a principal-to-principal basis, the contractors were the actual manufacturers. The demand of duty and penalty against the Board was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:20:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83006</link>
      <description>Electricity Board liability for excise turned on whether independent contractors manufacturing pre-stressed concrete poles could be treated as the Board&#039;s own manufacturing units. The contract terms showed that the contractors set up and operated their own factories, engaged their own staff, used their own plant and machinery, and procured materials other than cement, while the Board only supplied cement and supervised quality. In the absence of evidence that the units were dummy concerns or that the arrangements were not on a principal-to-principal basis, the contractors were the actual manufacturers. The demand of duty and penalty against the Board was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>