<?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 1439 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365967</link>
    <description>Ductile iron pipes cleared for water supply projects were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 6/2006 and 6/2007, where the goods were used for delivery of water from the source to the plant and up to the first storage point, or as integral parts of water supply projects within the prescribed diameter limits. Certificates issued by the Collector or other district authorities were accepted as satisfying the notification conditions because they indicated the intended use of the goods, and the factual finding of compliance was not effectively controverted. Prior Tribunal decisions were also treated as supporting the same view, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:18:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1439 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365967</link>
      <description>Ductile iron pipes cleared for water supply projects were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 6/2006 and 6/2007, where the goods were used for delivery of water from the source to the plant and up to the first storage point, or as integral parts of water supply projects within the prescribed diameter limits. Certificates issued by the Collector or other district authorities were accepted as satisfying the notification conditions because they indicated the intended use of the goods, and the factual finding of compliance was not effectively controverted. Prior Tribunal decisions were also treated as supporting the same view, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>