<?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 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204437</link>
    <description>Goods supplied by a sub-contractor for a mega power project were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. because the supplies were made against an international competitive bidding contract awarded to the main contractor and were required for setting up the project. The exemption was stated to extend to goods that would also be exempt from customs duty and additional duty if imported into India. The fact that the supplier itself was not the bidder did not, on the stated reasoning, defeat the exemption where the goods were routed through the main contractor and reached the project site under the subcontracting arrangement. On that basis, the demand and penalties were considered unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204437</link>
      <description>Goods supplied by a sub-contractor for a mega power project were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. because the supplies were made against an international competitive bidding contract awarded to the main contractor and were required for setting up the project. The exemption was stated to extend to goods that would also be exempt from customs duty and additional duty if imported into India. The fact that the supplier itself was not the bidder did not, on the stated reasoning, defeat the exemption where the goods were routed through the main contractor and reached the project site under the subcontracting arrangement. On that basis, the demand and penalties were considered unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>