<?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 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91929</link>
    <description>Use-based excise exemption under Notification No. 201/87-C.E. was confined to printing frames used in the factory of production or in another factory of the same manufacturer. A leased unit did not qualify as the appellants&#039; own factory where only specified machines were taken on lease, the unit remained a separately incorporated company with its own accounts and liabilities, and ownership of the machinery stayed with that unit. Mere lease of selected machinery was insufficient to treat the other premises as the appellants&#039; factory. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the demand, redemption fine, and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:44:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91929</link>
      <description>Use-based excise exemption under Notification No. 201/87-C.E. was confined to printing frames used in the factory of production or in another factory of the same manufacturer. A leased unit did not qualify as the appellants&#039; own factory where only specified machines were taken on lease, the unit remained a separately incorporated company with its own accounts and liabilities, and ownership of the machinery stayed with that unit. Mere lease of selected machinery was insufficient to treat the other premises as the appellants&#039; factory. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the demand, redemption fine, and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>