<?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 (7) TMI 1025 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330427</link>
    <description>Pipes used as casing pipes for tube wells were held eligible for exemption where the competent authority certified that they were intended to carry water from the source to the treatment plant for human and animal consumption. The notification was construed purposively, so as not to defeat its object of extending relief to water treatment plants. A narrow reading confined only to pipes physically conveying water would frustrate that purpose, and the Board&#039;s clarification supported exemption for pipes required to obtain untreated water from the source to the plant. The pipes were therefore covered by the exemption and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1025 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330427</link>
      <description>Pipes used as casing pipes for tube wells were held eligible for exemption where the competent authority certified that they were intended to carry water from the source to the treatment plant for human and animal consumption. The notification was construed purposively, so as not to defeat its object of extending relief to water treatment plants. A narrow reading confined only to pipes physically conveying water would frustrate that purpose, and the Board&#039;s clarification supported exemption for pipes required to obtain untreated water from the source to the plant. The pipes were therefore covered by the exemption and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>