<?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 (7) TMI 799 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330201</link>
    <description>Steel structures fabricated and erected at a project site from supplied materials were treated as non-excisable because they came into existence only through site-based assembly and were fixed to the earth. The analysis relied on the settled position that turnkey erection activity is not, by itself, manufacture of marketable goods, and noted that the Board&#039;s clarification on site-assembled plant and machinery supported that view. The distinction from the cited larger bench decision was that the structures were not movable goods at any stage. On that footing, the duty demand was held unsustainable and the order dropping duty, interest and penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 799 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330201</link>
      <description>Steel structures fabricated and erected at a project site from supplied materials were treated as non-excisable because they came into existence only through site-based assembly and were fixed to the earth. The analysis relied on the settled position that turnkey erection activity is not, by itself, manufacture of marketable goods, and noted that the Board&#039;s clarification on site-assembled plant and machinery supported that view. The distinction from the cited larger bench decision was that the structures were not movable goods at any stage. On that footing, the duty demand was held unsustainable and the order dropping duty, interest and penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>