<?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>2002 (10) TMI 392 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105776</link>
    <description>Diesel generating sets assembled, installed and commissioned at a customer&#039;s site on a concrete foundation, with the engine, alternator and allied equipment permanently grouted and interconnected, were treated as an erected power-generating installation rather than movable goods. The governing principle applied was that excisability depends on manufacture of a product that is movable and marketable; an installation that cannot be removed and sold as such without dismantling does not satisfy that test. On that reasoning, the site-assembled generating set was held not to be excisable goods but immovable property, and the duty demand on that basis could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 392 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105776</link>
      <description>Diesel generating sets assembled, installed and commissioned at a customer&#039;s site on a concrete foundation, with the engine, alternator and allied equipment permanently grouted and interconnected, were treated as an erected power-generating installation rather than movable goods. The governing principle applied was that excisability depends on manufacture of a product that is movable and marketable; an installation that cannot be removed and sold as such without dismantling does not satisfy that test. On that reasoning, the site-assembled generating set was held not to be excisable goods but immovable property, and the duty demand on that basis could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>