<?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>2018 (1) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353422</link>
    <description>Exemption under the mega power project notification was available where the prescribed certificate showed that the power-purchasing State had constituted a Regulatory Commission with tariff-fixing powers and had, in principle, undertaken distribution privatisation in cities above one million population; the certificate requirement was therefore met and denial on that ground was unsustainable. Supplies routed through a sub-contractor were also eligible where the goods were ultimately for execution of a project awarded under International Competitive Bidding; routing through the sub-contractor did not defeat the exemption claim. The appellate order sustaining duty demand was set aside and the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353422</link>
      <description>Exemption under the mega power project notification was available where the prescribed certificate showed that the power-purchasing State had constituted a Regulatory Commission with tariff-fixing powers and had, in principle, undertaken distribution privatisation in cities above one million population; the certificate requirement was therefore met and denial on that ground was unsustainable. Supplies routed through a sub-contractor were also eligible where the goods were ultimately for execution of a project awarded under International Competitive Bidding; routing through the sub-contractor did not defeat the exemption claim. The appellate order sustaining duty demand was set aside and the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>