<?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>2003 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51884</link>
    <description>A caisson gate constructed at site as part of a dry dock was held not to be excisable goods because it had no independent existence and no evidence showed it was capable of being taken to market and sold. The tribunal applied the settled requirement that excisability depends on both manufacture and marketability, and distinguished an integral civil structure from manufactured goods. As the Revenue failed to prove marketability, central excise duty was not payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:36:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51884</link>
      <description>A caisson gate constructed at site as part of a dry dock was held not to be excisable goods because it had no independent existence and no evidence showed it was capable of being taken to market and sold. The tribunal applied the settled requirement that excisability depends on both manufacture and marketability, and distinguished an integral civil structure from manufactured goods. As the Revenue failed to prove marketability, central excise duty was not payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>