<?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 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92717</link>
    <description>Ball bearings used as parts in the manufacture of P.D. pumps were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. because the prescribed Chapter X procedure had been followed and no extra condition could be read into the notification requiring the parts to be exclusively designed for that use. The liability point also favoured the respondents: any duty, if otherwise attracted, was stated to lie on the manufacturer of the ball bearings, not on recipients who merely used them in manufacture, especially where no show cause notice had been issued to the manufacturer. On these facts, the relief granted to the respondents was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:30:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92717</link>
      <description>Ball bearings used as parts in the manufacture of P.D. pumps were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. because the prescribed Chapter X procedure had been followed and no extra condition could be read into the notification requiring the parts to be exclusively designed for that use. The liability point also favoured the respondents: any duty, if otherwise attracted, was stated to lie on the manufacturer of the ball bearings, not on recipients who merely used them in manufacture, especially where no show cause notice had been issued to the manufacturer. On these facts, the relief granted to the respondents was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>