<?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 (6) TMI 106 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91489</link>
    <description>Rule 2(a) applies only where goods are removed in unassembled or disassembled form but already have the essential character of the finished article. An aerial passenger ropeway assembled and erected at site from separately procured components, with the system coming into existence only after staged installation and construction, does not amount to clearance of a complete ropeway in unassembled form. On that basis, the cited tariff heading was inapplicable, and the duty demand and consequential penalties could not be sustained. The earlier contrary authority was distinguished because it did not address Rule 2(a) in the same manner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:05:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 106 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91489</link>
      <description>Rule 2(a) applies only where goods are removed in unassembled or disassembled form but already have the essential character of the finished article. An aerial passenger ropeway assembled and erected at site from separately procured components, with the system coming into existence only after staged installation and construction, does not amount to clearance of a complete ropeway in unassembled form. On that basis, the cited tariff heading was inapplicable, and the duty demand and consequential penalties could not be sustained. The earlier contrary authority was distinguished because it did not address Rule 2(a) in the same manner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>