<?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 (12) TMI 30 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240365</link>
    <description>Pipes used in a lift irrigation scheme were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE because the project functioned as a water supply plant and included a storage facility, as shown by the pump houses, pumps, valves, pipelines and cisterns. A narrow literal reading of the notification was rejected where the arrangement objectively matched the exempted use of water delivery and storage. The text also notes that a later departmental order accepting the same exemption position for a subsequent period undermined invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 30 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240365</link>
      <description>Pipes used in a lift irrigation scheme were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE because the project functioned as a water supply plant and included a storage facility, as shown by the pump houses, pumps, valves, pipelines and cisterns. A narrow literal reading of the notification was rejected where the arrangement objectively matched the exempted use of water delivery and storage. The text also notes that a later departmental order accepting the same exemption position for a subsequent period undermined invocation of the extended limitation period and penalty. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>