<?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>2002 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184913</link>
    <description>Packing and despatch of water treatment plant components in CKD condition was not treated as manufacture because no new excisable product came into existence in the assessee&#039;s factory; the plant emerged only at the customer&#039;s site through assembly, erection, and civil work. The distinction between a package type plant and a large turnkey plant erected on site was material, with the latter being immovable and on a different footing for excise purposes. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because departmental records showed prior correspondence, disclosures, and earlier proceedings, leaving no proved wilful suppression or misstatement to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:23:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184913</link>
      <description>Packing and despatch of water treatment plant components in CKD condition was not treated as manufacture because no new excisable product came into existence in the assessee&#039;s factory; the plant emerged only at the customer&#039;s site through assembly, erection, and civil work. The distinction between a package type plant and a large turnkey plant erected on site was material, with the latter being immovable and on a different footing for excise purposes. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because departmental records showed prior correspondence, disclosures, and earlier proceedings, leaving no proved wilful suppression or misstatement to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>