<?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>2017 (2) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338400</link>
    <description>M.S. forged flanges supplied as parts or spares for wind mill towers were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE as components of non-conventional energy devices or systems. The Tribunal accepted that the wind mill tower forms part of the wind operated electrical generator, so a flange used in that tower is likewise part of the same system. It also held that exemption could not be denied merely because the tower was assembled at site, and that the phrase &quot;consumed in the factory of production&quot; could not be read narrowly to defeat the exemption. The earlier decision and bona fide belief, together with absence of suppression, supported the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:34:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338400</link>
      <description>M.S. forged flanges supplied as parts or spares for wind mill towers were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE as components of non-conventional energy devices or systems. The Tribunal accepted that the wind mill tower forms part of the wind operated electrical generator, so a flange used in that tower is likewise part of the same system. It also held that exemption could not be denied merely because the tower was assembled at site, and that the phrase &quot;consumed in the factory of production&quot; could not be read narrowly to defeat the exemption. The earlier decision and bona fide belief, together with absence of suppression, supported the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>