<?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 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50656</link>
    <description>Telescopic lighting towers were held to fall under Heading 7308.20 because their iron and steel construction gave them the essential character of a tower, and the residuary Heading 8543.00 could not apply where a specific structural description was available. The cost of fitted lamps was includible in assessable value because the tower was functionally complete only when supplied with those integral lights, even if some towers might sometimes be sold without them. Penalty for failure to obtain registration was sustained, as the explanation of bona fide belief was not accepted and the omission to comply with registration requirements was treated as unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:46:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 160 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50656</link>
      <description>Telescopic lighting towers were held to fall under Heading 7308.20 because their iron and steel construction gave them the essential character of a tower, and the residuary Heading 8543.00 could not apply where a specific structural description was available. The cost of fitted lamps was includible in assessable value because the tower was functionally complete only when supplied with those integral lights, even if some towers might sometimes be sold without them. Penalty for failure to obtain registration was sustained, as the explanation of bona fide belief was not accepted and the omission to comply with registration requirements was treated as unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>