<?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>1998 (1) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88132</link>
    <description>Capital investment in plant and machinery, when aggregated with clearing charges and indigenous equipment value, exceeded the Rs. 20 lakh ceiling under Notification No. 77/85, so the exemption threshold was not met. The imported wire mesh welder was to be valued at the amount taken at import clearance, and the exchange-rate dispute was not decisive on these facts. The Automatic Resetting Device could not be excluded from the computation because the notification allowed exclusion only where machinery was rendered unfit for use, and no evidence showed such unfitness; mere non-functioning was insufficient. Eligibility under the notification was therefore denied and the demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:48:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88132</link>
      <description>Capital investment in plant and machinery, when aggregated with clearing charges and indigenous equipment value, exceeded the Rs. 20 lakh ceiling under Notification No. 77/85, so the exemption threshold was not met. The imported wire mesh welder was to be valued at the amount taken at import clearance, and the exchange-rate dispute was not decisive on these facts. The Automatic Resetting Device could not be excluded from the computation because the notification allowed exclusion only where machinery was rendered unfit for use, and no evidence showed such unfitness; mere non-functioning was insufficient. Eligibility under the notification was therefore denied and the demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>