<?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>2006 (11) TMI 397 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120319</link>
    <description>A prima facie showing of entitlement to exemption can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E. because the material did not sufficiently show that the goods were machinery rather than a complete plant. By contrast, the certificate of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board supported the claim that the goods functioned as an effluent treatment unit with reverse osmosis for water reuse, and the absence of some listed facilities did not defeat the claim at this stage under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. The comparable exemption entry was treated as pari materia, and interim protection was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:36:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 397 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120319</link>
      <description>A prima facie showing of entitlement to exemption can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E. because the material did not sufficiently show that the goods were machinery rather than a complete plant. By contrast, the certificate of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board supported the claim that the goods functioned as an effluent treatment unit with reverse osmosis for water reuse, and the absence of some listed facilities did not defeat the claim at this stage under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. The comparable exemption entry was treated as pari materia, and interim protection was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>