<?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>2006 (3) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117510</link>
    <description>Prestressed concrete girders cast in separate yards and later transported for launching and fixation at a bridge site were treated as excisable goods classifiable under Heading 6807.90. Relying on the Larger Bench view in Asian Techs Ltd., the text states that marketability is not lost merely because the goods are ultimately incorporated into an immovable structure, and the exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was therefore unavailable. It further states that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked because the assessee had not disclosed the manufacturing activity and had withheld material facts from the department, with contractual acceptance of duty liability supporting suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:47:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117510</link>
      <description>Prestressed concrete girders cast in separate yards and later transported for launching and fixation at a bridge site were treated as excisable goods classifiable under Heading 6807.90. Relying on the Larger Bench view in Asian Techs Ltd., the text states that marketability is not lost merely because the goods are ultimately incorporated into an immovable structure, and the exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was therefore unavailable. It further states that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked because the assessee had not disclosed the manufacturing activity and had withheld material facts from the department, with contractual acceptance of duty liability supporting suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>