<?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 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341447</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the turbine imported by the appellant did not qualify for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE as it was not a total device capable of producing energy. The Tribunal emphasized the strict interpretation of exemption notifications to prevent revenue loss and cited precedent to support its decision that turbines are not eligible for exemption. The issue of claims under different notifications was deemed unnecessary at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341447</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the turbine imported by the appellant did not qualify for exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE as it was not a total device capable of producing energy. The Tribunal emphasized the strict interpretation of exemption notifications to prevent revenue loss and cited precedent to support its decision that turbines are not eligible for exemption. The issue of claims under different notifications was deemed unnecessary at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>