<?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 436 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345324</link>
    <description>Goods such as bus duct, control panel, ICAM system and static convertor qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE when used in a non-conventional energy device or system. The exemption was supported by a certificate from the State non-conventional energy development corporation confirming use in the power project, and by the Board&#039;s circular stating that machinery, components and equipment forming part of a complete control equipment or system may qualify on proper evidence. A view that the items must independently generate energy was rejected as too narrow and inconsistent with the object of the notification, so the exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 436 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345324</link>
      <description>Goods such as bus duct, control panel, ICAM system and static convertor qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE when used in a non-conventional energy device or system. The exemption was supported by a certificate from the State non-conventional energy development corporation confirming use in the power project, and by the Board&#039;s circular stating that machinery, components and equipment forming part of a complete control equipment or system may qualify on proper evidence. A view that the items must independently generate energy was rejected as too narrow and inconsistent with the object of the notification, so the exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>