<?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>2015 (5) TMI 54 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259180</link>
    <description>Pipes used to convey water to a temporary hill-top storage point, before onward supply to the water treatment plant and final storage facility, were considered within the scope of the water-pipe exemption notification. The prescribed certificate had been produced, and the dispute turned on whether the temporary storage point could be treated as the final storage facility. The Tribunal held that a logistical stop created because of hilly terrain did not become the final storage facility contemplated by the notification, so the exemption could not be narrowed to exclude the disputed segment. The demand, interest, and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 54 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259180</link>
      <description>Pipes used to convey water to a temporary hill-top storage point, before onward supply to the water treatment plant and final storage facility, were considered within the scope of the water-pipe exemption notification. The prescribed certificate had been produced, and the dispute turned on whether the temporary storage point could be treated as the final storage facility. The Tribunal held that a logistical stop created because of hilly terrain did not become the final storage facility contemplated by the notification, so the exemption could not be narrowed to exclude the disputed segment. The demand, interest, and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>