<?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 (4) TMI 352 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96160</link>
    <description>Control panels were treated as integral parts of magnetic lifts and not as independently operable equipment. Because the lifts themselves were not entitled to capital goods benefit, the Tribunal applied the capital goods definition to the machine and its parts and found that the Revenue&#039;s proposed question of law did not arise from the final order. The reference application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:42:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 352 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96160</link>
      <description>Control panels were treated as integral parts of magnetic lifts and not as independently operable equipment. Because the lifts themselves were not entitled to capital goods benefit, the Tribunal applied the capital goods definition to the machine and its parts and found that the Revenue&#039;s proposed question of law did not arise from the final order. The reference application was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>