<?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>2008 (5) TMI 717 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277237</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the benefit of Notification Nos. 3/2007 and 6/2002 to goods manufactured and cleared to another unit without following Chapter X procedure. The Tribunal emphasized that the notifications exempted &#039;goods&#039; and not &#039;parts&#039;, and as long as the goods were used in the manufacture of Power Driven Pumps, the benefit could not be denied based solely on non-compliance with the procedural requirement. The Tribunal highlighted that the purpose of Chapter X procedure could be achieved through alternative means, and non-compliance should not result in denial of the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 717 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277237</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the benefit of Notification Nos. 3/2007 and 6/2002 to goods manufactured and cleared to another unit without following Chapter X procedure. The Tribunal emphasized that the notifications exempted &#039;goods&#039; and not &#039;parts&#039;, and as long as the goods were used in the manufacture of Power Driven Pumps, the benefit could not be denied based solely on non-compliance with the procedural requirement. The Tribunal highlighted that the purpose of Chapter X procedure could be achieved through alternative means, and non-compliance should not result in denial of the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>