<?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 (11) TMI 797 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105469</link>
    <description>Fluid Bed Tea Driers were treated as excisable goods because the assembled units were found to come into existence before clearance from the factory and were capable of being moved, despite the plenum chamber. Applying the marketability test and the test of manufacture, the Tribunal held that standard models had already been assembled and tested, with no fresh material to show any different special model. It further held that the excisable value was correctly determined after excluding bought-out items and post-clearance charges, and that Tariff Item 68 covered the goods. The duty demand and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:34:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 797 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105469</link>
      <description>Fluid Bed Tea Driers were treated as excisable goods because the assembled units were found to come into existence before clearance from the factory and were capable of being moved, despite the plenum chamber. Applying the marketability test and the test of manufacture, the Tribunal held that standard models had already been assembled and tested, with no fresh material to show any different special model. It further held that the excisable value was correctly determined after excluding bought-out items and post-clearance charges, and that Tariff Item 68 covered the goods. The duty demand and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>