<?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 (12) TMI 543 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389660</link>
    <description>Ready Mix Concrete manufactured at site was held to be distinct from Concrete Mix, and the exemption under Notification No. 4/97-CE was treated as applicable only to Concrete Mix. Applying the Supreme Court ruling in Larsen &amp; Toubro Ltd., the Tribunal found that the appellant had not established that the goods were anything other than Ready Mix Concrete. On that basis, the exemption claim failed and the duty demand for the normal period was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:23:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 543 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389660</link>
      <description>Ready Mix Concrete manufactured at site was held to be distinct from Concrete Mix, and the exemption under Notification No. 4/97-CE was treated as applicable only to Concrete Mix. Applying the Supreme Court ruling in Larsen &amp; Toubro Ltd., the Tribunal found that the appellant had not established that the goods were anything other than Ready Mix Concrete. On that basis, the exemption claim failed and the duty demand for the normal period was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>