<?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>2019 (4) TMI 161 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377717</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the girder unit was a separate and independent unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE until 19.03.2020. It concluded that the adjudicating authority misinterpreted evidence, leading to incorrect findings. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal and ruling that the demand for duty was not sustainable due to the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the area-based exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 06:14:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 161 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377717</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the girder unit was a separate and independent unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE until 19.03.2020. It concluded that the adjudicating authority misinterpreted evidence, leading to incorrect findings. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal and ruling that the demand for duty was not sustainable due to the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the area-based exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>