<?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 (7) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202905</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. applies only to goods supplied directly to the project, not to contractors or suppliers. The Tribunal emphasized interpreting the notification in its entirety, rejecting arguments on judicial discipline and the principle of per incuriam.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202905</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. applies only to goods supplied directly to the project, not to contractors or suppliers. The Tribunal emphasized interpreting the notification in its entirety, rejecting arguments on judicial discipline and the principle of per incuriam.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>