<?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 (8) TMI 205 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50285</link>
    <description>An integral bought-out component specified as essential to excisable machinery is includible in assessable value, and non-inclusion can justify the extended limitation period and penalty. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld where the machinery came into existence within the Commissioner&#039;s area. Duty already paid on a dismantled machine cleared from the factory cannot be demanded again merely because it is assembled at site, and erection and commissioning charges are not subject to excise duty. Concessional treatment under Notification No. 175/86 was denied because the prescribed ceiling-limit condition was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:51:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 205 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50285</link>
      <description>An integral bought-out component specified as essential to excisable machinery is includible in assessable value, and non-inclusion can justify the extended limitation period and penalty. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld where the machinery came into existence within the Commissioner&#039;s area. Duty already paid on a dismantled machine cleared from the factory cannot be demanded again merely because it is assembled at site, and erection and commissioning charges are not subject to excise duty. Concessional treatment under Notification No. 175/86 was denied because the prescribed ceiling-limit condition was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>