<?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 933 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345821</link>
    <description>Exemption for domestically manufactured hydel gates and parts was available under Notification No. 6/2006-CE read with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the condition relied on by the lower authority had been deleted during the relevant period, and the remaining condition applied only to imports by a Central Public Sector Undertaking, not to factory manufacture. Denial based on non-registration under project import regulations was also unsustainable because that requirement was not raised in the show cause notice and was not a condition for the appellant&#039;s manufactured goods. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 933 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345821</link>
      <description>Exemption for domestically manufactured hydel gates and parts was available under Notification No. 6/2006-CE read with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the condition relied on by the lower authority had been deleted during the relevant period, and the remaining condition applied only to imports by a Central Public Sector Undertaking, not to factory manufacture. Denial based on non-registration under project import regulations was also unsustainable because that requirement was not raised in the show cause notice and was not a condition for the appellant&#039;s manufactured goods. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>