<?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>2020 (5) TMI 504 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395471</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, as amended, was held admissible for a solar lantern package cleared as a composite solar lighting system with two lamps and one solar photovoltaic module. The decisive consideration was the goods as actually cleared and marketed, which functioned as an integrated system capable of charging both lamps simultaneously. Artificially vivisecting the package to treat the second lamp as an ordinary lamp was rejected, because the technical opinion relied on by revenue did not displace the composite character of the package. The denial of exemption to the second lamp was therefore unsustainable, and exemption applied to the entire package.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 504 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395471</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, as amended, was held admissible for a solar lantern package cleared as a composite solar lighting system with two lamps and one solar photovoltaic module. The decisive consideration was the goods as actually cleared and marketed, which functioned as an integrated system capable of charging both lamps simultaneously. Artificially vivisecting the package to treat the second lamp as an ordinary lamp was rejected, because the technical opinion relied on by revenue did not displace the composite character of the package. The denial of exemption to the second lamp was therefore unsustainable, and exemption applied to the entire package.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>