<?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>2006 (11) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166030</link>
    <description>The exemption under serial No. 51 of Notification No. 4/97-CE was construed to cover ready mix concrete manufactured at site, because the entry referring to concrete mix in Chapter 38 did not justify a narrower exclusion. Applying the Larger Bench interpretation, the Tribunal accepted that ready mix concrete produced at site fell within the notification&#039;s scope. As the exemption applied, the duty demand could not stand, and the connected penalties on the manufacturer and its officers were also unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166030</link>
      <description>The exemption under serial No. 51 of Notification No. 4/97-CE was construed to cover ready mix concrete manufactured at site, because the entry referring to concrete mix in Chapter 38 did not justify a narrower exclusion. Applying the Larger Bench interpretation, the Tribunal accepted that ready mix concrete produced at site fell within the notification&#039;s scope. As the exemption applied, the duty demand could not stand, and the connected penalties on the manufacturer and its officers were also unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>