https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42706 Conflicting High Court views on the scope of Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 led the single Bench to treat the excisability question as requiring authoritative consideration by a Division Bench. The competing approaches concerned whether parts fabricated and installed at site for a cold storage system were dutiable only when they formed ready assembled units ordinarily sold as such, or whether components such as cooling coils and condensers fell within the tariff entry even when manufactured for captive use and not for sale. The writ petition was not finally decided on merits, and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench. en-us Fri, 16 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:33:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42706 Conflicting High Court views on the scope of Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 led the single Bench to treat the excisability question as requiring authoritative consideration by a Division Bench. The competing approaches concerned whether parts fabricated and installed at site for a cold storage system were dutiable only when they formed ready assembled units ordinarily sold as such, or whether components such as cooling coils and condensers fell within the tariff entry even when manufactured for captive use and not for sale. The writ petition was not finally decided on merits, and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42706