<?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>2001 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95289</link>
    <description>Fabrication of rails into GIR Joints was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article with a different name, character and use, and the goods were marketable. The insulated joints were upheld under Sub-heading 8530.00 as signalling equipment parts because they functioned as an insulation and safety device for track circuits. Suppression and non-registration justified the extended limitation period, but duty had to be recomputed with Modvat credit for duty-paid inputs and relevant valuation materials. Confiscation was sustained; the firm&#039;s penalty was modified, while the partner&#039;s personal penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:52:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95289</link>
      <description>Fabrication of rails into GIR Joints was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article with a different name, character and use, and the goods were marketable. The insulated joints were upheld under Sub-heading 8530.00 as signalling equipment parts because they functioned as an insulation and safety device for track circuits. Suppression and non-registration justified the extended limitation period, but duty had to be recomputed with Modvat credit for duty-paid inputs and relevant valuation materials. Confiscation was sustained; the firm&#039;s penalty was modified, while the partner&#039;s personal penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>