<?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 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353879</link>
    <description>Exemption for clearance of flanges under Notification No. 6/2006-EX read with Notification No. 21/2002-CUS was available where the goods were supplied against international competitive bidding for execution of a project by a contractor or sub-contractor, and their eligibility under the relevant list had already been accepted in the appellant&#039;s own case. The Tribunal found no reason to depart from that earlier finding. It also held that the Project Authority certificate condition applied to importers, not to domestic manufacturers, so denial of exemption for absence of that certificate was unsustainable. The claimed exemption was therefore allowed and the confirmed demand could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:40:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353879</link>
      <description>Exemption for clearance of flanges under Notification No. 6/2006-EX read with Notification No. 21/2002-CUS was available where the goods were supplied against international competitive bidding for execution of a project by a contractor or sub-contractor, and their eligibility under the relevant list had already been accepted in the appellant&#039;s own case. The Tribunal found no reason to depart from that earlier finding. It also held that the Project Authority certificate condition applied to importers, not to domestic manufacturers, so denial of exemption for absence of that certificate was unsustainable. The claimed exemption was therefore allowed and the confirmed demand could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>