<?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 (8) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385045</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE was held available for supplies made to Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. for Ministry of Defence purposes, because eligibility depended on the nature and intended use of the supply rather than the assessee&#039;s name appearing in the list; the related demand was set aside. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 03/2004-CE for water supply plants could not be sustained where the district authority certificate had reportedly been filed but was not traceable, so the claim required fresh adjudication. The denial under Notification No. 6/2006-CE read with Notification No. 21/2002-CE also required reconsideration on the basis of the notification conditions and documents already on record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:09:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385045</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE was held available for supplies made to Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. for Ministry of Defence purposes, because eligibility depended on the nature and intended use of the supply rather than the assessee&#039;s name appearing in the list; the related demand was set aside. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 03/2004-CE for water supply plants could not be sustained where the district authority certificate had reportedly been filed but was not traceable, so the claim required fresh adjudication. The denial under Notification No. 6/2006-CE read with Notification No. 21/2002-CE also required reconsideration on the basis of the notification conditions and documents already on record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>