<?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 (8) TMI 703 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250753</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for goods supplied to ultra mega power projects does not depend on the supplier itself participating in the tariff-based competitive bidding process. The operative conditions are that the project is tied up through such bidding, the Central Electricity Authority certifies that the goods are required for the project, and the project CEO furnishes the undertaking. Prior Tribunal reasoning supports extending the benefit to a sub-contractor named in the awarded contract where the contract itself arose from the prescribed bidding process. However, supporting project certificates had not been examined by the lower authorities, so the exemption claim required fresh verification of those documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 703 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250753</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for goods supplied to ultra mega power projects does not depend on the supplier itself participating in the tariff-based competitive bidding process. The operative conditions are that the project is tied up through such bidding, the Central Electricity Authority certifies that the goods are required for the project, and the project CEO furnishes the undertaking. Prior Tribunal reasoning supports extending the benefit to a sub-contractor named in the awarded contract where the contract itself arose from the prescribed bidding process. However, supporting project certificates had not been examined by the lower authorities, so the exemption claim required fresh verification of those documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>