<?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>2007 (1) TMI 354 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120799</link>
    <description>Site-erected BTS/BSC equipment used for telecom services was held not to be marketable goods capable of being bought and sold in the market in installed form, because the systems were user-specific and site-specific even if dismantling and reassembly was possible. On that basis, the Tribunal treated the activity as service-oriented installation and commissioning rather than manufacture of excisable goods. Since the equipment was not excisable under section 3, the central excise duty demand failed, and the consequential penalties on the assessee and individuals also could not survive. The appeals were therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:09:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 354 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120799</link>
      <description>Site-erected BTS/BSC equipment used for telecom services was held not to be marketable goods capable of being bought and sold in the market in installed form, because the systems were user-specific and site-specific even if dismantling and reassembly was possible. On that basis, the Tribunal treated the activity as service-oriented installation and commissioning rather than manufacture of excisable goods. Since the equipment was not excisable under section 3, the central excise duty demand failed, and the consequential penalties on the assessee and individuals also could not survive. The appeals were therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>