<?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 (7) TMI 1106 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104555</link>
    <description>At the interim stage, the Tribunal treated the fabrication and classification of ventilation systems and strip lighting systems as prima facie debatable because the materials suggested on-site assembly and unresolved manufacture issues. It also found a strong prima facie case on limitation, noting departmental awareness and insufficient support for extended-period invocation. Penalty against the supplier of drawings and designs was held prima facie unsustainable because there was no basis to show abetment, and a person who was not the manufacturer could not be penalised under Rule 173Q. Taking Notification No. 1/93 and financial hardship into account, the Tribunal ordered only a partial deposit and stayed recovery of the balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:35:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1106 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104555</link>
      <description>At the interim stage, the Tribunal treated the fabrication and classification of ventilation systems and strip lighting systems as prima facie debatable because the materials suggested on-site assembly and unresolved manufacture issues. It also found a strong prima facie case on limitation, noting departmental awareness and insufficient support for extended-period invocation. Penalty against the supplier of drawings and designs was held prima facie unsustainable because there was no basis to show abetment, and a person who was not the manufacturer could not be penalised under Rule 173Q. Taking Notification No. 1/93 and financial hardship into account, the Tribunal ordered only a partial deposit and stayed recovery of the balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>