<?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 102 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51892</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the moving arm parts installed on the jetty were eligible for duty credit. It held that the jetty, including the moving arm, should be considered part of the factory premises due to the appellant&#039;s ownership, control, and use for manufacturing activities. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of ownership and control in such determinations, ultimately allowing the appeals for duty credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:54:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 102 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51892</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the moving arm parts installed on the jetty were eligible for duty credit. It held that the jetty, including the moving arm, should be considered part of the factory premises due to the appellant&#039;s ownership, control, and use for manufacturing activities. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of ownership and control in such determinations, ultimately allowing the appeals for duty credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>