<?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>1978 (5) TMI 40 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40571</link>
    <description>Goods used as cooling coils in refrigeration technology were treated as parts of refrigerating machinery classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 29A(3), because the manner of site assembly did not alter their essential character and constructive removal for manufacture attracted duty. The plea that only specified exempt parts fell outside Rule 8 was rejected, and the goods remained dutiable. The limitation objection under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also failed, because that provision was held inapplicable to departmental proceedings and did not bar the show cause notice. The revision application accordingly failed on both classification and limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 17:35:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (5) TMI 40 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40571</link>
      <description>Goods used as cooling coils in refrigeration technology were treated as parts of refrigerating machinery classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 29A(3), because the manner of site assembly did not alter their essential character and constructive removal for manufacture attracted duty. The plea that only specified exempt parts fell outside Rule 8 was rejected, and the goods remained dutiable. The limitation objection under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also failed, because that provision was held inapplicable to departmental proceedings and did not bar the show cause notice. The revision application accordingly failed on both classification and limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>