<?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>2014 (7) TMI 275 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249238</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activity of assembling CNG kits did not constitute manufacturing subject to central excise duty. The appellant&#039;s payment of sales tax on kit sales and service tax on installations was considered sufficient, with the Tribunal distinguishing the assembly process from manufacturing based on precedent. Consequently, the order demanding central excise duty and penalties was overturned, and the appeal, along with the stay application, was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 275 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249238</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their activity of assembling CNG kits did not constitute manufacturing subject to central excise duty. The appellant&#039;s payment of sales tax on kit sales and service tax on installations was considered sufficient, with the Tribunal distinguishing the assembly process from manufacturing based on precedent. Consequently, the order demanding central excise duty and penalties was overturned, and the appeal, along with the stay application, was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>