<?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>2008 (8) TMI 953 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194373</link>
    <description>Conditional exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used in a thermal power plant applied only where the fuel was intended for generation of electrical energy by a qualifying electricity undertaking or a person holding the relevant licence or sanction during the disputed period. The text states that the beneficiaries did not satisfy those eligibility conditions, and that the later inclusion of &quot;generating company&quot; operated prospectively from 1 March 2003. It also notes that duty could be recovered from the buyer under the undertaking and Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. On penalty, procurement through Annexure-I certificates and the interpretative nature of the dispute were said to negate intent to evade, so penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 953 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194373</link>
      <description>Conditional exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used in a thermal power plant applied only where the fuel was intended for generation of electrical energy by a qualifying electricity undertaking or a person holding the relevant licence or sanction during the disputed period. The text states that the beneficiaries did not satisfy those eligibility conditions, and that the later inclusion of &quot;generating company&quot; operated prospectively from 1 March 2003. It also notes that duty could be recovered from the buyer under the undertaking and Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. On penalty, procurement through Annexure-I certificates and the interpretative nature of the dispute were said to negate intent to evade, so penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>