<?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>2006 (8) TMI 587 - CEGAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171073</link>
    <description>Fresh grounds not raised in the show cause notice could not be introduced by the Revenue at the appellate stage, so the demand could not be sustained on a new basis. On classification, dumper placers and skip loaders assembled piece by piece on duty-paid chassis were treated as special purpose motor vehicles under Chapter Heading 8705 because the finished vehicle emerged only after mounting bought-out components and was not separately marketable as an independent machine. On that footing, the applicable exemption notifications were held available, and the demand was upheld only if the goods fell outside the notification, which on these facts they did not.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:43:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 587 - CEGAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171073</link>
      <description>Fresh grounds not raised in the show cause notice could not be introduced by the Revenue at the appellate stage, so the demand could not be sustained on a new basis. On classification, dumper placers and skip loaders assembled piece by piece on duty-paid chassis were treated as special purpose motor vehicles under Chapter Heading 8705 because the finished vehicle emerged only after mounting bought-out components and was not separately marketable as an independent machine. On that footing, the applicable exemption notifications were held available, and the demand was upheld only if the goods fell outside the notification, which on these facts they did not.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>