<?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>2016 (4) TMI 625 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326511</link>
    <description>Fabrication of saddles in the factory amounted to manufacture because the goods were capable of being bought and sold, and articles fixed by nuts and bolts did not lose excisable character where they could be removed without permanent assimilation to the earth. The appellant was treated as the manufacturer in a job-work arrangement since it supplied drawings, materials, premises and supervision. Exemption under Notifications 61/90-CE and 41/94-CE was denied because the saddles were not fabricated at a construction site for use in construction work. MODVAT credit was admissible subject to verification, while limitation was upheld for one demand and negatived for the other.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 625 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326511</link>
      <description>Fabrication of saddles in the factory amounted to manufacture because the goods were capable of being bought and sold, and articles fixed by nuts and bolts did not lose excisable character where they could be removed without permanent assimilation to the earth. The appellant was treated as the manufacturer in a job-work arrangement since it supplied drawings, materials, premises and supervision. Exemption under Notifications 61/90-CE and 41/94-CE was denied because the saddles were not fabricated at a construction site for use in construction work. MODVAT credit was admissible subject to verification, while limitation was upheld for one demand and negatived for the other.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>