<?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>2011 (8) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204794</link>
    <description>Iron and steel structures fabricated in the factory for installing sugar manufacturing machinery were held not to be components of eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Applying the common parlance meaning of &quot;component&quot;, the SC held that a component must be an integral part that forms part of the machinery itself; supporting structures do not satisfy that test. The exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was therefore unavailable, and the duty demand was sustained. Later reliance on a CBEC circular did not change the result, and the Tribunal&#039;s chapter-heading reasoning was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204794</link>
      <description>Iron and steel structures fabricated in the factory for installing sugar manufacturing machinery were held not to be components of eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Applying the common parlance meaning of &quot;component&quot;, the SC held that a component must be an integral part that forms part of the machinery itself; supporting structures do not satisfy that test. The exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was therefore unavailable, and the duty demand was sustained. Later reliance on a CBEC circular did not change the result, and the Tribunal&#039;s chapter-heading reasoning was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>