<?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 579 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96297</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata, ruled in favor of the appellants, including M/s. Western India Machinery Co. and M/s. Vineet Electrical Industries (P) Ltd., determining that the assembly of Diesel Generating Sets (D.G. Sets) at installation sites did not amount to &quot;manufacture&quot; for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal held that the D.G. Sets, once assembled on-site, did not meet the criteria of mobility and marketability necessary for classification as excisable goods, thus setting aside the duty confirmation orders and providing relief to the appellants. The Tribunal did not address the appellants&#039; alternate plea of limitation as the primary issue was resolved in their favor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:03:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 579 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96297</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata, ruled in favor of the appellants, including M/s. Western India Machinery Co. and M/s. Vineet Electrical Industries (P) Ltd., determining that the assembly of Diesel Generating Sets (D.G. Sets) at installation sites did not amount to &quot;manufacture&quot; for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal held that the D.G. Sets, once assembled on-site, did not meet the criteria of mobility and marketability necessary for classification as excisable goods, thus setting aside the duty confirmation orders and providing relief to the appellants. The Tribunal did not address the appellants&#039; alternate plea of limitation as the primary issue was resolved in their favor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>