<?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 (3) TMI 388 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89252</link>
    <description>The exemption under Notification No. 281/86 applied only to excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in repairing or maintaining machinery installed there. The Tribunal interpreted &quot;installed&quot; in its ordinary sense as set up, fixed or placed in position for service or use, and held that locomotives, rolling stock, wagons and bogies are moving items, not machinery installed in the factory. The notification was confined to machinery installed in the factory, not merely machinery used there. The goods therefore did not qualify for the exemption, and the claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:12:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 388 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89252</link>
      <description>The exemption under Notification No. 281/86 applied only to excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in repairing or maintaining machinery installed there. The Tribunal interpreted &quot;installed&quot; in its ordinary sense as set up, fixed or placed in position for service or use, and held that locomotives, rolling stock, wagons and bogies are moving items, not machinery installed in the factory. The notification was confined to machinery installed in the factory, not merely machinery used there. The goods therefore did not qualify for the exemption, and the claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>