<?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 (7) TMI 176 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50640</link>
    <description>Cement concrete armoured units and slabs manufactured for breakwater construction were treated as excisable goods because they were produced through a manufacturing process using cement and steel and were capable of movement from the casting site to the place of use by cranes and barges. On those facts, the goods satisfied the requirements of manufacture and marketability for levy of central excise duty, so the duty demand was held sustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 176 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50640</link>
      <description>Cement concrete armoured units and slabs manufactured for breakwater construction were treated as excisable goods because they were produced through a manufacturing process using cement and steel and were capable of movement from the casting site to the place of use by cranes and barges. On those facts, the goods satisfied the requirements of manufacture and marketability for levy of central excise duty, so the duty demand was held sustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>