<?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>2019 (2) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374625</link>
    <description>Site-assembled unitized structural glazing and aluminium windows were treated as non-excisable because the decisive test of removability was not met: once erected at the project site, the structures could not be dismantled and reassembled without substantial damage. The analysis also noted that the issue had already attained finality in the assessee&#039;s own earlier proceedings. On limitation, the extended period was found unavailable because the assessee had disclosed its position, filed returns, and corresponded with the department, leaving no basis to infer suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374625</link>
      <description>Site-assembled unitized structural glazing and aluminium windows were treated as non-excisable because the decisive test of removability was not met: once erected at the project site, the structures could not be dismantled and reassembled without substantial damage. The analysis also noted that the issue had already attained finality in the assessee&#039;s own earlier proceedings. On limitation, the extended period was found unavailable because the assessee had disclosed its position, filed returns, and corresponded with the department, leaving no basis to infer suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>