<?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>2001 (2) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50455</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the conveyor system assembly does not amount to manufacturing excisable goods. Circulars from the Board and a previous judgment were cited to support this. The system becomes immovable property once assembled. The departmental representative&#039;s argument that fixing the system to the ground for vibration-free operation does not change this. The system, consisting of various components, is not marketable as a whole and must be disassembled for transport. The appeal was allowed, the previous order set aside, and consequential relief granted if permissible. The judgment clarifies the distinction between assembly and manufacture, emphasizing the immovable nature of the conveyor system once assembled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:04:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50455</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the conveyor system assembly does not amount to manufacturing excisable goods. Circulars from the Board and a previous judgment were cited to support this. The system becomes immovable property once assembled. The departmental representative&#039;s argument that fixing the system to the ground for vibration-free operation does not change this. The system, consisting of various components, is not marketable as a whole and must be disassembled for transport. The appeal was allowed, the previous order set aside, and consequential relief granted if permissible. The judgment clarifies the distinction between assembly and manufacture, emphasizing the immovable nature of the conveyor system once assembled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>