<?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>2010 (8) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202003</link>
    <description>Cement cleared in packed form to construction industry consumers was found eligible for the concessional duty benefit under the notification because construction was treated as a service industry for the relevant fiscal purpose and the exclusion for packaged commodities meant for institutional or industrial consumers was applied on that basis. The Tribunal&#039;s view, supported by earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions, accepted that the assessee met the other notification conditions and that packing alone did not defeat the claim on the facts found. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and concessional excise treatment was retained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202003</link>
      <description>Cement cleared in packed form to construction industry consumers was found eligible for the concessional duty benefit under the notification because construction was treated as a service industry for the relevant fiscal purpose and the exclusion for packaged commodities meant for institutional or industrial consumers was applied on that basis. The Tribunal&#039;s view, supported by earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions, accepted that the assessee met the other notification conditions and that packing alone did not defeat the claim on the facts found. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and concessional excise treatment was retained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>