<?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>2009 (5) TMI 639 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125433</link>
    <description>Electricity was treated as not prima facie liable to excise duty, as the Tribunal noted that tax can arise only from a clear statutory provision and that mere inclusion in the Schedule did not establish excisability. On that basis, it found an arguable case that the demand linked to sale of electricity exported to the grid could not be sustained, and therefore dispensed with pre-deposit and stayed execution of the impugned order pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:56:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 639 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125433</link>
      <description>Electricity was treated as not prima facie liable to excise duty, as the Tribunal noted that tax can arise only from a clear statutory provision and that mere inclusion in the Schedule did not establish excisability. On that basis, it found an arguable case that the demand linked to sale of electricity exported to the grid could not be sustained, and therefore dispensed with pre-deposit and stayed execution of the impugned order pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>