<?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>2008 (1) TMI 728 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123295</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. could not be refused where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were actually received at the project site and used for the intended project. The objections concerned only procedural defects in the manner and forum of submitting the certificate and the form of consignment, which did not defeat the exemption when substantive compliance was established. The impugned order was set aside and the exemption benefit was sustained, with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 728 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123295</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. could not be refused where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were actually received at the project site and used for the intended project. The objections concerned only procedural defects in the manner and forum of submitting the certificate and the form of consignment, which did not defeat the exemption when substantive compliance was established. The impugned order was set aside and the exemption benefit was sustained, with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>