<?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 (5) TMI 1563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380835</link>
    <description>Where factual verification showed that the Bulk Milk Cooler&#039;s components were procured from local and overseas sources, stored separately, and cleared to customers for installation and commissioning at site, excise demand could not be sustained on the theory that the goods were manufactured in the assessee&#039;s factory and removed in knocked down condition. A later visit to the customer&#039;s premises did not by itself establish in-factory manufacture, and the Board&#039;s circular supported the view that the demand was untenable. The challenge by Revenue to the dropping of duty demand therefore failed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380835</link>
      <description>Where factual verification showed that the Bulk Milk Cooler&#039;s components were procured from local and overseas sources, stored separately, and cleared to customers for installation and commissioning at site, excise demand could not be sustained on the theory that the goods were manufactured in the assessee&#039;s factory and removed in knocked down condition. A later visit to the customer&#039;s premises did not by itself establish in-factory manufacture, and the Board&#039;s circular supported the view that the demand was untenable. The challenge by Revenue to the dropping of duty demand therefore failed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>