<?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>2012 (6) TMI 73 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213753</link>
    <description>Fabrication of steel structurals and allied items by independent contractors in the factory did not make the assessee the manufacturer where the contractors raised separate bills and carried out the work on their own, even though the assessee supplied raw material and exercised supervision. The goods were eligible for exemption because they were manufactured in a workshop within the factory and shown to be intended for installation, erection, repair and maintenance within the factory, with no clearance as finished excisable goods. In the absence of suppression during a period of legal uncertainty on cutting, drilling and welding, the extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 73 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213753</link>
      <description>Fabrication of steel structurals and allied items by independent contractors in the factory did not make the assessee the manufacturer where the contractors raised separate bills and carried out the work on their own, even though the assessee supplied raw material and exercised supervision. The goods were eligible for exemption because they were manufactured in a workshop within the factory and shown to be intended for installation, erection, repair and maintenance within the factory, with no clearance as finished excisable goods. In the absence of suppression during a period of legal uncertainty on cutting, drilling and welding, the extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>