<?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>2000 (12) TMI 528 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97082</link>
    <description>Where PSC pools are manufactured by an independent contractor under a principal-to-principal contract, the contractor is treated as the real manufacturer and duty cannot be fastened on the principal on that basis. The text applies earlier Tribunal orders in identical matters and treats the contractual and factual position as establishing that the respondent was not the manufacturer for the disputed duty demand. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:48:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 528 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97082</link>
      <description>Where PSC pools are manufactured by an independent contractor under a principal-to-principal contract, the contractor is treated as the real manufacturer and duty cannot be fastened on the principal on that basis. The text applies earlier Tribunal orders in identical matters and treats the contractual and factual position as establishing that the respondent was not the manufacturer for the disputed duty demand. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>