<?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 1127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342157</link>
    <description>Suppression of facts was not established where the Department already had knowledge of the imported input, its intended use, and the manufacturing process through registration records, procurement certificates, statutory returns, and audit verification; the demand on that basis could not survive. The imported Fibre Glass Roving was found to satisfy the exemption notification because it was used directly in the manufacture of telecommunication-grade FRP for overhead cables, so the conditions of Notification No. 20/99 were met and concessional duty was available. The departmental challenge therefore failed and the relief granted to the assessee was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342157</link>
      <description>Suppression of facts was not established where the Department already had knowledge of the imported input, its intended use, and the manufacturing process through registration records, procurement certificates, statutory returns, and audit verification; the demand on that basis could not survive. The imported Fibre Glass Roving was found to satisfy the exemption notification because it was used directly in the manufacture of telecommunication-grade FRP for overhead cables, so the conditions of Notification No. 20/99 were met and concessional duty was available. The departmental challenge therefore failed and the relief granted to the assessee was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>