<?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>2013 (4) TMI 53 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221857</link>
    <description>Goods fabricated at the site and used in construction of the factory premises qualified for exemption under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. because the notification covered goods of the relevant tariff heading fabricated at the site of work for use in construction at that site. On the facts recorded, the statutory condition was satisfied, so the benefit of the notification was rightly allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 53 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221857</link>
      <description>Goods fabricated at the site and used in construction of the factory premises qualified for exemption under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. because the notification covered goods of the relevant tariff heading fabricated at the site of work for use in construction at that site. On the facts recorded, the statutory condition was satisfied, so the benefit of the notification was rightly allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>