<?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>2002 (3) TMI 98 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51190</link>
    <description>A site-erected belt conveyor system fixed to the earth through civil foundations and permanent welding was held not to be excisable goods because excisability requires manufacture of movable, marketable goods. The system was found to be an immovable structure that could not be dismantled and sold in the market without substantial damage, so coverage by a tariff entry was insufficient. As the conveyor was non-excisable, the central excise duty demand could not survive and the penalties were also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:15:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 98 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51190</link>
      <description>A site-erected belt conveyor system fixed to the earth through civil foundations and permanent welding was held not to be excisable goods because excisability requires manufacture of movable, marketable goods. The system was found to be an immovable structure that could not be dismantled and sold in the market without substantial damage, so coverage by a tariff entry was insufficient. As the conveyor was non-excisable, the central excise duty demand could not survive and the penalties were also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>