<?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>2004 (11) TMI 231 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53677</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellant&#039;s activities, involving the construction of aluminium doors, windows, and curtain walls on-site, do not constitute the manufacture of marketable goods subject to central excise duty. The Tribunal determined that these constructions are not identifiable commercial products and, therefore, the duty demand and penalties were unwarranted. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 231 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53677</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellant&#039;s activities, involving the construction of aluminium doors, windows, and curtain walls on-site, do not constitute the manufacture of marketable goods subject to central excise duty. The Tribunal determined that these constructions are not identifiable commercial products and, therefore, the duty demand and penalties were unwarranted. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>