<?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 (2) TMI 75 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354654</link>
    <description>Commercial production was held to have commenced before the 31.03.2010 cut-off for area-based exemption under Notification No. 15/2003-CE. Timely filing of the declaration, invoices showing procurement of capital goods, raw materials and components before the relevant date, and statements from concerned persons supported the finding of pre-cut-off production. The first clearance of multimedia speakers on 31.03.2010 was corroborated by the purchaser&#039;s confirmation of receipt. Departmental objections based on later testing equipment purchases and the absence of brand permission letters were found insufficient to displace the evidence. The appellant was therefore entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 75 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354654</link>
      <description>Commercial production was held to have commenced before the 31.03.2010 cut-off for area-based exemption under Notification No. 15/2003-CE. Timely filing of the declaration, invoices showing procurement of capital goods, raw materials and components before the relevant date, and statements from concerned persons supported the finding of pre-cut-off production. The first clearance of multimedia speakers on 31.03.2010 was corroborated by the purchaser&#039;s confirmation of receipt. Departmental objections based on later testing equipment purchases and the absence of brand permission letters were found insufficient to displace the evidence. The appellant was therefore entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>