<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1209 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274046</link>
    <description>Central excise exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE was held available for indigenous goods supplied to a thermal power project against international competitive bidding. The Tribunal reasoned that the customs project-import classification under Heading 9801 could not be mechanically applied to an Indian manufacturer, because that heading was designed for imported goods and was not a literal precondition for domestic supply. The substantive requirement was supply of goods for the specified project, and that condition was satisfied. On that basis, denial of the exemption was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:50:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1209 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274046</link>
      <description>Central excise exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE was held available for indigenous goods supplied to a thermal power project against international competitive bidding. The Tribunal reasoned that the customs project-import classification under Heading 9801 could not be mechanically applied to an Indian manufacturer, because that heading was designed for imported goods and was not a literal precondition for domestic supply. The substantive requirement was supply of goods for the specified project, and that condition was satisfied. On that basis, denial of the exemption was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>