<?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>2012 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219088</link>
    <description>An exemption notification must be applied according to its own stated conditions, and ancillary Foreign Trade Policy requirements cannot be imported unless expressly incorporated. In this matter, goods supplied for a mega power project were linked to the exemption structure, and the Revenue did not dispute compliance with the notification&#039;s express conditions. On that basis, a prima facie case was found for interim relief, so waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted pending appeal. Denial of exemption solely because the manufacturer did not itself participate in International Competitive Bidding was not justified on the material before the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219088</link>
      <description>An exemption notification must be applied according to its own stated conditions, and ancillary Foreign Trade Policy requirements cannot be imported unless expressly incorporated. In this matter, goods supplied for a mega power project were linked to the exemption structure, and the Revenue did not dispute compliance with the notification&#039;s express conditions. On that basis, a prima facie case was found for interim relief, so waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted pending appeal. Denial of exemption solely because the manufacturer did not itself participate in International Competitive Bidding was not justified on the material before the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>