<?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>2000 (9) TMI 122 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49967</link>
    <description>Charges for post-removal supervision of erection and commissioning at the customer&#039;s site were held not to form part of the assessable value of excisable goods, because the goods were already complete on clearance from the factory and the supervision was a distinct post-manufacturing activity with no nexus to manufacture or marketability. The related duty demand was therefore not sustainable, and the consequential penalty also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 122 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49967</link>
      <description>Charges for post-removal supervision of erection and commissioning at the customer&#039;s site were held not to form part of the assessable value of excisable goods, because the goods were already complete on clearance from the factory and the supervision was a distinct post-manufacturing activity with no nexus to manufacture or marketability. The related duty demand was therefore not sustainable, and the consequential penalty also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>