<?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>Ready Mix Concrete Duty: Court Upholds Tax Liability Despite Plant Ownership; Concessional Rate Request Remanded.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82282</link>
    <description>This is a case regarding levy of Central Excise Duty on Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at construction sites by the appellant. The key points are: The appellant was manufacturing RMC at the site of the builder using raw materials provided by the builder, making it a job-work activity. The ownership of plant and machinery is irrelevant in determining job-work; the relationship between material supplier and processor is crucial. As the appellant was clearing goods manufactured on behalf of the builder, duty was payable by the appellant even as a job-worker. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it was held that due to a change in opinion based on a Supreme Court decision, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:24:23 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:24:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=773580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Ready Mix Concrete Duty: Court Upholds Tax Liability Despite Plant Ownership; Concessional Rate Request Remanded.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82282</link>
      <description>This is a case regarding levy of Central Excise Duty on Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at construction sites by the appellant. The key points are: The appellant was manufacturing RMC at the site of the builder using raw materials provided by the builder, making it a job-work activity. The ownership of plant and machinery is irrelevant in determining job-work; the relationship between material supplier and processor is crucial. As the appellant was clearing goods manufactured on behalf of the builder, duty was payable by the appellant even as a job-worker. Regarding the extended period of limitation, it was held that due to a change in opinion based on a Supreme Court decision, the extended period could not be invoked, and the demand .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:24:23 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>