<?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 (8) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364686</link>
    <description>Tractors supplied for a launch vehicle project were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/95 because the supporting certificate stated that they were part and parcel of the project and were intended for transporting rocket fuel and related materials. The certificate also identified the description, quantity, and intended use of the goods, and no material was produced to discredit it or show impropriety. On that basis, the ordinary description of the goods did not prevent exemption where their actual use fell within the notified project. The denial of exemption was therefore unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364686</link>
      <description>Tractors supplied for a launch vehicle project were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/95 because the supporting certificate stated that they were part and parcel of the project and were intended for transporting rocket fuel and related materials. The certificate also identified the description, quantity, and intended use of the goods, and no material was produced to discredit it or show impropriety. On that basis, the ordinary description of the goods did not prevent exemption where their actual use fell within the notified project. The denial of exemption was therefore unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>