<?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 722 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378278</link>
    <description>PSC poles were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 74/93-CE because both statutory conditions had to be strictly satisfied: manufacture in a factory belonging to the State Government and intended use by the State Government. A statutory electricity board or similar authority was not treated as the State Government, so the appellant could not bring its factory within the notification. Applying the governing Larger Bench precedent, the exemption failed and the duty and interest demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:08:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 722 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378278</link>
      <description>PSC poles were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 74/93-CE because both statutory conditions had to be strictly satisfied: manufacture in a factory belonging to the State Government and intended use by the State Government. A statutory electricity board or similar authority was not treated as the State Government, so the appellant could not bring its factory within the notification. Applying the governing Larger Bench precedent, the exemption failed and the duty and interest demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>