<?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>2000 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92851</link>
    <description>Goods supplied for a World Bank-assisted project satisfied the exemption conditions under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. because the expression &quot;financed by&quot; was read to include projects supported by an international organisation through loan or credit, not only those wholly paid for by it. The record also showed World Bank letters confirming the contracts and eligibility of the ex-factory cost for disbursement, and the notification did not prescribe any specific certificate form. Denial of the benefit on grounds not raised in the show cause notice was impermissible. The exemption was therefore admissible, and the demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92851</link>
      <description>Goods supplied for a World Bank-assisted project satisfied the exemption conditions under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. because the expression &quot;financed by&quot; was read to include projects supported by an international organisation through loan or credit, not only those wholly paid for by it. The record also showed World Bank letters confirming the contracts and eligibility of the ex-factory cost for disbursement, and the notification did not prescribe any specific certificate form. Denial of the benefit on grounds not raised in the show cause notice was impermissible. The exemption was therefore admissible, and the demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>