<?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>2016 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326030</link>
    <description>Duty-free procurement for a 100% EOU/STP unit was available under Notification No. 1/95-CE and Notification No. 140/91-Cus because the governing condition was installation or use of the capital goods within the bonded premises within the stipulated period. The notifications were read as pari materia, and no further requirement could be added that the goods must be used specifically for software development. Since installation or use in the unit&#039;s premises was not disputed, exemption could not be denied on that basis; Revenue&#039;s authorities were held inapplicable on the facts, while the respondent&#039;s authorities supported exemption on identical facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326030</link>
      <description>Duty-free procurement for a 100% EOU/STP unit was available under Notification No. 1/95-CE and Notification No. 140/91-Cus because the governing condition was installation or use of the capital goods within the bonded premises within the stipulated period. The notifications were read as pari materia, and no further requirement could be added that the goods must be used specifically for software development. Since installation or use in the unit&#039;s premises was not disputed, exemption could not be denied on that basis; Revenue&#039;s authorities were held inapplicable on the facts, while the respondent&#039;s authorities supported exemption on identical facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>