<?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 (9) TMI 504 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209707</link>
    <description>Prefabricated structural components manufactured at a project yard and used exclusively in the same construction project fell within the exemption for goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at that site. The term &quot;site&quot; was treated broadly to include premises made available to the manufacturer under the construction contract, as clarified by the Board circular, where the goods were produced solely for that work. Because the components were unique to the designated project and met both the manufacture and end-use conditions, the exemption applied and the excise demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 504 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209707</link>
      <description>Prefabricated structural components manufactured at a project yard and used exclusively in the same construction project fell within the exemption for goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at that site. The term &quot;site&quot; was treated broadly to include premises made available to the manufacturer under the construction contract, as clarified by the Board circular, where the goods were produced solely for that work. Because the components were unique to the designated project and met both the manufacture and end-use conditions, the exemption applied and the excise demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>