<?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 (12) TMI 231 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52560</link>
    <description>Charges for drawings and documents connected with erection of a caustic evaporation plant were examined for inclusion in assessable value, but most of the disputed material consisted of site-related engineering documents, such as layout, process, piping, electrical and approval drawings, which were treated as relating to the plant at site rather than to goods cleared from the factory. Equipment fabrication drawings and certain piping material specification or erection-related drawings required further examination because they could affect manufacture of supplied components. The inclusion issue was therefore not conclusively resolved on the existing record, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of those identified charges and the linked exemption and penalty questions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:15:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 231 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52560</link>
      <description>Charges for drawings and documents connected with erection of a caustic evaporation plant were examined for inclusion in assessable value, but most of the disputed material consisted of site-related engineering documents, such as layout, process, piping, electrical and approval drawings, which were treated as relating to the plant at site rather than to goods cleared from the factory. Equipment fabrication drawings and certain piping material specification or erection-related drawings required further examination because they could affect manufacture of supplied components. The inclusion issue was therefore not conclusively resolved on the existing record, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of those identified charges and the linked exemption and penalty questions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>