<?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 (1) TMI 1179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106119</link>
    <description>Penalty for a Coal Handling Plant supplied and installed at site could not survive once the plant had already been held to be immovable property, consisting of civil structures, conveyors and supporting structures, and therefore not marketable as goods. That classification had been affirmed by the Supreme Court through dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s civil appeal. On that binding position, the assumption that the plant was excisable failed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:53:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106119</link>
      <description>Penalty for a Coal Handling Plant supplied and installed at site could not survive once the plant had already been held to be immovable property, consisting of civil structures, conveyors and supporting structures, and therefore not marketable as goods. That classification had been affirmed by the Supreme Court through dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s civil appeal. On that binding position, the assumption that the plant was excisable failed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>