<?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 141 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50128</link>
    <description>Jigs and fixtures are treated as excisable goods if they are capable of sale, even where manufactured to specification and used for internal operations; actual sale is unnecessary. Exemption under Notification No. 220/86-C.E. applies only where the goods are manufactured in a factory and intended for use in that same factory, so removal to job workers defeats the condition and strict compliance is required. For limitation, mere filing of a licence application did not amount to full disclosure of manufacture and clearance, and the absence of classification lists and statutory records justified the extended period; the penalty was reduced only in quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:19:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 141 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50128</link>
      <description>Jigs and fixtures are treated as excisable goods if they are capable of sale, even where manufactured to specification and used for internal operations; actual sale is unnecessary. Exemption under Notification No. 220/86-C.E. applies only where the goods are manufactured in a factory and intended for use in that same factory, so removal to job workers defeats the condition and strict compliance is required. For limitation, mere filing of a licence application did not amount to full disclosure of manufacture and clearance, and the absence of classification lists and statutory records justified the extended period; the penalty was reduced only in quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>