<?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>1996 (6) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85663</link>
    <description>Assembly and installation of turbo-generator sets at site was treated as manufacture because the components were brought together into a commercially distinct, marketable unit; duty liability therefore arose. Bought-out inputs used in the manufacture were eligible for Modvat credit subject to proof of duty payment and use. Drawing and designing charges, as well as erection charges, were included in assessable value as part of production and final emergence of the machinery. Notional interest on customer advances required contract-wise factual examination and was remanded for fresh determination. In view of Board circulars and the absence of wilful suppression, the extended limitation period and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:53:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85663</link>
      <description>Assembly and installation of turbo-generator sets at site was treated as manufacture because the components were brought together into a commercially distinct, marketable unit; duty liability therefore arose. Bought-out inputs used in the manufacture were eligible for Modvat credit subject to proof of duty payment and use. Drawing and designing charges, as well as erection charges, were included in assessable value as part of production and final emergence of the machinery. Notional interest on customer advances required contract-wise factual examination and was remanded for fresh determination. In view of Board circulars and the absence of wilful suppression, the extended limitation period and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>