<?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 (6) TMI 101 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50609</link>
    <description>A conveyor belt system fabricated, assembled, tested and commissioned at site was held to be immovable property because it came into existence only through on-site assembly and commissioning, acquired its identity during that process, and could not be removed as a complete unit without dismantling. On that basis, it was not treated as movable excisable goods and did not attract central excise duty as goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 101 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50609</link>
      <description>A conveyor belt system fabricated, assembled, tested and commissioned at site was held to be immovable property because it came into existence only through on-site assembly and commissioning, acquired its identity during that process, and could not be removed as a complete unit without dismantling. On that basis, it was not treated as movable excisable goods and did not attract central excise duty as goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>