<?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>1983 (12) TMI 292 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166801</link>
    <description>For exemption under a notification linked to the ceiling on capital investment in plant and machinery, a mobile crane used inside the factory for handling materials and supporting manufacturing operations was treated as part of the industrial unit&#039;s plant and machinery. The Tribunal held that the expression &quot;plant and machinery&quot; is wide enough to include equipment used for industrial activity within the premises, and that physical embedding in the earth or permanent fixation is not necessary. Because the crane was actually used for transport and handling during manufacture, its value was includible in the capital investment computation, causing the exemption limit to be exceeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:39:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 292 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166801</link>
      <description>For exemption under a notification linked to the ceiling on capital investment in plant and machinery, a mobile crane used inside the factory for handling materials and supporting manufacturing operations was treated as part of the industrial unit&#039;s plant and machinery. The Tribunal held that the expression &quot;plant and machinery&quot; is wide enough to include equipment used for industrial activity within the premises, and that physical embedding in the earth or permanent fixation is not necessary. Because the crane was actually used for transport and handling during manufacture, its value was includible in the capital investment computation, causing the exemption limit to be exceeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>