<?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 (7) TMI 128 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345016</link>
    <description>Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was interpreted to extend exemption to chassis cleared for an approved internationally financed bus project where the project certificate expressly stated that the assessee would manufacture the chassis and specified body builders would build the bus bodies on its behalf. The exemption could not be denied merely because the clearances were described as chassis rather than finished buses, and prior undisputed clearances of similar chassis supported that reading. Correlation between the chassis and the buses supplied, and the question of unjust enrichment, had not been examined by the lower authorities and were remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 128 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345016</link>
      <description>Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was interpreted to extend exemption to chassis cleared for an approved internationally financed bus project where the project certificate expressly stated that the assessee would manufacture the chassis and specified body builders would build the bus bodies on its behalf. The exemption could not be denied merely because the clearances were described as chassis rather than finished buses, and prior undisputed clearances of similar chassis supported that reading. Correlation between the chassis and the buses supplied, and the question of unjust enrichment, had not been examined by the lower authorities and were remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>