<?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 (5) TMI 1295 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360731</link>
    <description>Notification No. 63/95-CE was applied to an intermediate supplier of brake linings and clutch facings used by Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. in manufacturing goods ultimately supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The Tribunal treated the issue as covered by its earlier decision in the same appellant&#039;s case, following the view that exemption is available to vendors and intermediate manufacturers where the goods are used in the end-use chain contemplated by the notification. The fact that the supplier was not expressly named in the notification was not a valid ground to deny the benefit. The exemption was therefore admissible and the demand could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 08:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1295 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360731</link>
      <description>Notification No. 63/95-CE was applied to an intermediate supplier of brake linings and clutch facings used by Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. in manufacturing goods ultimately supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The Tribunal treated the issue as covered by its earlier decision in the same appellant&#039;s case, following the view that exemption is available to vendors and intermediate manufacturers where the goods are used in the end-use chain contemplated by the notification. The fact that the supplier was not expressly named in the notification was not a valid ground to deny the benefit. The exemption was therefore admissible and the demand could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>