<?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 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347577</link>
    <description>Exemption for pipes used in water supply projects was held available where the substantive condition of use was satisfied and the District Collector&#039;s certificate supported the claim. MS Specials were treated as part of the pipe system for the projects, and the fact that some certificates did not specifically mention them was treated as only a technical omission. Because the goods were shown to have been supplied for the exempted water supply projects and had been accepted in some certificates, the omission could not defeat exemption. The duty demand, interest, and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 11:14:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347577</link>
      <description>Exemption for pipes used in water supply projects was held available where the substantive condition of use was satisfied and the District Collector&#039;s certificate supported the claim. MS Specials were treated as part of the pipe system for the projects, and the fact that some certificates did not specifically mention them was treated as only a technical omission. Because the goods were shown to have been supplied for the exempted water supply projects and had been accepted in some certificates, the omission could not defeat exemption. The duty demand, interest, and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>