<?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 (7) TMI 590 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120233</link>
    <description>Flywheels manufactured on a job-work basis and used as parts in the manufacture of Diesel Oil Engines were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/85-Central Excise because the end-use condition was satisfied. The absence of registration with excise authorities did not defeat the exemption where the substantive requirement was met, and procedural non-compliance with Chapter X could not by itself deny the benefit. Rejection of supporting evidence merely because it was unattested was also found insufficient, as the documents could have been verified. The exemption was therefore available, and the demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:46:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 590 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120233</link>
      <description>Flywheels manufactured on a job-work basis and used as parts in the manufacture of Diesel Oil Engines were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/85-Central Excise because the end-use condition was satisfied. The absence of registration with excise authorities did not defeat the exemption where the substantive requirement was met, and procedural non-compliance with Chapter X could not by itself deny the benefit. Rejection of supporting evidence merely because it was unattested was also found insufficient, as the documents could have been verified. The exemption was therefore available, and the demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>