<?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>2003 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46802</link>
    <description>A factory-assembled, enclosed cold room with insulated panels, a door, flooring and a cooling unit was treated as a cabinet and therefore classifiable as a part of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances under Tariff Item 29A(3). The manufacture was completed in the factory because the panels were made, assembled, inspected and approved there, even though the unit was later dismantled for transport and reassembled at site. The demand for duty and penalty was also held within the extended limitation period because the assessee had suppressed the true manufacturing process and falsely claimed outside job-work, and mere presence of an Excise Inspector did not amount to departmental knowledge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:24:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46802</link>
      <description>A factory-assembled, enclosed cold room with insulated panels, a door, flooring and a cooling unit was treated as a cabinet and therefore classifiable as a part of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances under Tariff Item 29A(3). The manufacture was completed in the factory because the panels were made, assembled, inspected and approved there, even though the unit was later dismantled for transport and reassembled at site. The demand for duty and penalty was also held within the extended limitation period because the assessee had suppressed the true manufacturing process and falsely claimed outside job-work, and mere presence of an Excise Inspector did not amount to departmental knowledge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>