<?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>1994 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83597</link>
    <description>Unspecified motor vehicle parts brought under Chapter X procedure were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 167/79-C.E. when they were used in the manufacture of internal combustion engines that were themselves excisable goods and were ultimately employed as original equipment in motor vehicles. The notification was read to cover parts and accessories of motor vehicles intended for further manufacture, and the post-1979 tariff classification did not defeat that treatment merely because the parts fell under Item 68. Because the prescribed procedure was followed and the engines were used in motor vehicle production, denial of exemption was not justified and the duty demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:34:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83597</link>
      <description>Unspecified motor vehicle parts brought under Chapter X procedure were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 167/79-C.E. when they were used in the manufacture of internal combustion engines that were themselves excisable goods and were ultimately employed as original equipment in motor vehicles. The notification was read to cover parts and accessories of motor vehicles intended for further manufacture, and the post-1979 tariff classification did not defeat that treatment merely because the parts fell under Item 68. Because the prescribed procedure was followed and the engines were used in motor vehicle production, denial of exemption was not justified and the duty demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>