<?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 (7) TMI 76 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1103</link>
    <description>Erection and installation of BTS/relay station equipment at site, including cable connections for telecom operations, was treated as not amounting to manufacture for central excise purposes. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case on identical facts and noted that the adjudicating authority failed to address that binding precedent, amounting to non-application of mind. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 76 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1103</link>
      <description>Erection and installation of BTS/relay station equipment at site, including cable connections for telecom operations, was treated as not amounting to manufacture for central excise purposes. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case on identical facts and noted that the adjudicating authority failed to address that binding precedent, amounting to non-application of mind. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>