<?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>2005 (12) TMI 124 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54662</link>
    <description>Components cleared in knocked-down condition were treated as a complete pre-designed office furniture system, because the parts supplied together were sufficient to form the identified workstation or furniture system and removal in unassembled form did not alter that character. Site assembly and installation by joining and fixing the pre-existing components did not amount to manufacture, since no new commercially distinct product emerged. As duty had already been discharged at the supplier&#039;s stage on the complete system, a second levy on the same goods at the customer&#039;s premises was not justified. The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:43:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 124 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54662</link>
      <description>Components cleared in knocked-down condition were treated as a complete pre-designed office furniture system, because the parts supplied together were sufficient to form the identified workstation or furniture system and removal in unassembled form did not alter that character. Site assembly and installation by joining and fixing the pre-existing components did not amount to manufacture, since no new commercially distinct product emerged. As duty had already been discharged at the supplier&#039;s stage on the complete system, a second levy on the same goods at the customer&#039;s premises was not justified. The duty demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>