<?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 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94420</link>
    <description>Notification No. 281/86-C.E. exempted excisable goods made in a factory workshop only when they were intended for repair or maintenance of machinery installed in that factory or another factory of the same manufacturer. The Tribunal applied strict construction of the exemption and held that locomotives, wagons, rolling stock and similar moving transport equipment are not machinery installed in a factory. It distinguished broader definitions of &quot;plant&quot; under income-tax decisions as inapplicable to the notification and the Central Excise Act. On that basis, parts manufactured for such equipment did not qualify for the exemption and the claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:10:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 297 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94420</link>
      <description>Notification No. 281/86-C.E. exempted excisable goods made in a factory workshop only when they were intended for repair or maintenance of machinery installed in that factory or another factory of the same manufacturer. The Tribunal applied strict construction of the exemption and held that locomotives, wagons, rolling stock and similar moving transport equipment are not machinery installed in a factory. It distinguished broader definitions of &quot;plant&quot; under income-tax decisions as inapplicable to the notification and the Central Excise Act. On that basis, parts manufactured for such equipment did not qualify for the exemption and the claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>