<?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 (11) TMI 983 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334965</link>
    <description>Notification No. 6/2002-CE was held inapplicable to an imported steam turbine, gearbox and spares for CVD computation because the exemption extends only to the device that directly converts agricultural, forestry or agro-industrial waste into energy. A turbine that converts steam or heat into mechanical or electrical power is not itself the waste-conversion device, and that interpretation had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Later notifications relied on by the importer were treated as prospective only, so they could not support retrospective exemption. The claim for non-conventional energy device exemption therefore failed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 983 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334965</link>
      <description>Notification No. 6/2002-CE was held inapplicable to an imported steam turbine, gearbox and spares for CVD computation because the exemption extends only to the device that directly converts agricultural, forestry or agro-industrial waste into energy. A turbine that converts steam or heat into mechanical or electrical power is not itself the waste-conversion device, and that interpretation had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Later notifications relied on by the importer were treated as prospective only, so they could not support retrospective exemption. The claim for non-conventional energy device exemption therefore failed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>