<?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>2017 (1) TMI 602 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337522</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellant, engaged in manufacturing storage systems, for fabrication and installation at customer sites. The Tribunal ruled that if duty applied to on-site activities, it should be imposed on subcontractors, not the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the duty demand was deemed incorrect and illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 602 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337522</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellant, engaged in manufacturing storage systems, for fabrication and installation at customer sites. The Tribunal ruled that if duty applied to on-site activities, it should be imposed on subcontractors, not the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the duty demand was deemed incorrect and illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>