<?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 999 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365527</link>
    <description>Solar street lights were held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 because the issue had already been decided in their favour by an earlier Tribunal ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed that binding view and granted the exemption, and the Revenue appeal failed because it raised no fresh ground for a different result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2018 06:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 999 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365527</link>
      <description>Solar street lights were held entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 because the issue had already been decided in their favour by an earlier Tribunal ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed that binding view and granted the exemption, and the Revenue appeal failed because it raised no fresh ground for a different result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>