<?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 (7) TMI 561 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122055</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that duty liability on naphtha supplied to power plants post withdrawal of warehousing facility was not applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification granting duty waiver remained valid despite the withdrawal of the warehousing facility. It was found that the naphtha supplied to the specified power plant fell under the exemption criteria, and there was no legal basis for imposing duty solely due to the withdrawal of warehousing. The demands for duty recovery were deemed unjustified, and the appellant&#039;s position of continued duty exemption was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the duty demand confirmation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 561 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122055</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that duty liability on naphtha supplied to power plants post withdrawal of warehousing facility was not applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification granting duty waiver remained valid despite the withdrawal of the warehousing facility. It was found that the naphtha supplied to the specified power plant fell under the exemption criteria, and there was no legal basis for imposing duty solely due to the withdrawal of warehousing. The demands for duty recovery were deemed unjustified, and the appellant&#039;s position of continued duty exemption was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the duty demand confirmation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>