<?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 1341 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</link>
    <description>Furnace oil used to generate steam in fertilizer manufacture was held not to qualify as feed stock for exemption under the relevant notifications, following settled Supreme Court law, so the exemption claim failed on merits. The demand for the period beyond one year from the show-cause notice was, however, held time-barred because the procurement was under CT-3 certificates and within departmental knowledge, making the extended period unavailable. Penalty was also set aside because the substantive exemption dispute and extended-period demand could not be sustained in full. The result was partial relief only to the extent of the demand within the normal limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:58:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1341 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</link>
      <description>Furnace oil used to generate steam in fertilizer manufacture was held not to qualify as feed stock for exemption under the relevant notifications, following settled Supreme Court law, so the exemption claim failed on merits. The demand for the period beyond one year from the show-cause notice was, however, held time-barred because the procurement was under CT-3 certificates and within departmental knowledge, making the extended period unavailable. Penalty was also set aside because the substantive exemption dispute and extended-period demand could not be sustained in full. The result was partial relief only to the extent of the demand within the normal limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>