<?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>2014 (4) TMI 53 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245554</link>
    <description>Conditions attached to an exemption notification must be strictly complied with. The required certificate had to be produced at the time of clearance, and obtaining it only after investigation did not cure the defect; the exemption was therefore not available. Optical fibre and optical cable supplied in running lengths were not treated as accessories or spare parts within the notification, so they also fell outside the exemption. Because the exemption was claimed despite non-fulfilment of the prescribed condition and the non-disclosure of the missing certificate supported suppression, the demand was held not to be time-barred. The exemption order was accordingly set aside and the duty demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 53 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245554</link>
      <description>Conditions attached to an exemption notification must be strictly complied with. The required certificate had to be produced at the time of clearance, and obtaining it only after investigation did not cure the defect; the exemption was therefore not available. Optical fibre and optical cable supplied in running lengths were not treated as accessories or spare parts within the notification, so they also fell outside the exemption. Because the exemption was claimed despite non-fulfilment of the prescribed condition and the non-disclosure of the missing certificate supported suppression, the demand was held not to be time-barred. The exemption order was accordingly set aside and the duty demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>