<?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 (5) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342649</link>
    <description>Notification No. 6/2006-CE was applied as an independent exemption regime, so entitlement depended on its own conditions rather than deemed export procedure requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy. CCTV systems supplied to a mega power project remained eligible where the project itself had been awarded to a bidder participating in International Competitive Bidding, and local procurement merely substituted for duty-free import under the corresponding customs exemption. The absence of the supplier&#039;s name in project certificates and the lack of sub-contractor approval did not, by themselves, defeat the exemption when the notification conditions were otherwise met. The duty exemption claim was upheld and denial of benefit was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342649</link>
      <description>Notification No. 6/2006-CE was applied as an independent exemption regime, so entitlement depended on its own conditions rather than deemed export procedure requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy. CCTV systems supplied to a mega power project remained eligible where the project itself had been awarded to a bidder participating in International Competitive Bidding, and local procurement merely substituted for duty-free import under the corresponding customs exemption. The absence of the supplier&#039;s name in project certificates and the lack of sub-contractor approval did not, by themselves, defeat the exemption when the notification conditions were otherwise met. The duty exemption claim was upheld and denial of benefit was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>