<?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 (9) TMI 885 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332624</link>
    <description>For computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, only goods covered by the notification can be included in the exemption turnover. Power-driven submersible pumps not conforming to BIS standards fell outside the notification&#039;s scope, so their value could not be counted toward the small scale exemption threshold. The notification had to be read with its relevant paragraph, table and annexure, which restricted the aggregate turnover to excisable goods matching the specified description. On that basis, exclusion of the non-BIS pumps from turnover computation was correct and the refund claim was maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 885 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332624</link>
      <description>For computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, only goods covered by the notification can be included in the exemption turnover. Power-driven submersible pumps not conforming to BIS standards fell outside the notification&#039;s scope, so their value could not be counted toward the small scale exemption threshold. The notification had to be read with its relevant paragraph, table and annexure, which restricted the aggregate turnover to excisable goods matching the specified description. On that basis, exclusion of the non-BIS pumps from turnover computation was correct and the refund claim was maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>