<?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>1999 (3) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90030</link>
    <description>Grooving of rolling mills was treated as incidental to their upkeep, and replacement of a roller that had outlived its utility was regarded as part of the maintenance and repair of the rolling mills. On that basis, Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was held applicable to the activity, so the duty demand could not survive and the penalty was not justified. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:42:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90030</link>
      <description>Grooving of rolling mills was treated as incidental to their upkeep, and replacement of a roller that had outlived its utility was regarded as part of the maintenance and repair of the rolling mills. On that basis, Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was held applicable to the activity, so the duty demand could not survive and the penalty was not justified. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>