<?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 (10) TMI 1832 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266557</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of electricity meter reading instruments, in a case concerning exemption eligibility under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. The appellant&#039;s products were correctly classified, and although there were procedural lapses in declaration requirements, the Tribunal found that substantial compliance was achieved by sending the declaration to the jurisdictional Superintendent. The failure to send a copy to the Assistant Commissioner did not invalidate the exemption claim. Additionally, a clerical mistake in the Tariff Heading mentioned in the declaration did not warrant denial of the exemption. As a result, the duty demands, interest, and penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:15:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1832 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266557</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of electricity meter reading instruments, in a case concerning exemption eligibility under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. The appellant&#039;s products were correctly classified, and although there were procedural lapses in declaration requirements, the Tribunal found that substantial compliance was achieved by sending the declaration to the jurisdictional Superintendent. The failure to send a copy to the Assistant Commissioner did not invalidate the exemption claim. Additionally, a clerical mistake in the Tariff Heading mentioned in the declaration did not warrant denial of the exemption. As a result, the duty demands, interest, and penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.</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=266557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>