<?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 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86518</link>
    <description>A conveyor system permanently embedded in the factory floor by grouting driver units, driven units, stands, channels, gear boxes and electric motors into the earth was treated as immovable property from the outset and therefore not excisable goods. The system did not emerge as a movable article capable of being bought and sold, and the test of marketability was not met because it was designed for a specific factory location and lacked commercial identity as marketable goods. On that basis, the article states that no central excise duty was payable and the penalty was unsustainable; limitation was not examined because excisability failed at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:14:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86518</link>
      <description>A conveyor system permanently embedded in the factory floor by grouting driver units, driven units, stands, channels, gear boxes and electric motors into the earth was treated as immovable property from the outset and therefore not excisable goods. The system did not emerge as a movable article capable of being bought and sold, and the test of marketability was not met because it was designed for a specific factory location and lacked commercial identity as marketable goods. On that basis, the article states that no central excise duty was payable and the penalty was unsustainable; limitation was not examined because excisability failed at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>