<?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>2023 (9) TMI 1059 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443437</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of castable refractory goods, in a case concerning exemption under Notification No.06/2006-CE for supplying goods to a thermal power station project. The Tribunal found that the project met the capacity criteria for exemption, allowing the appellant to benefit from the notification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for exemption under Notification No.20/2002 for supplying goods to power projects, as the Commissioner&#039;s findings on Customs duty were deemed erroneous. The Tribunal also noted that the Department could not deny the refund claimed by the appellant for a short period of duty payment made in error.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2023 08:38:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1059 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443437</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of castable refractory goods, in a case concerning exemption under Notification No.06/2006-CE for supplying goods to a thermal power station project. The Tribunal found that the project met the capacity criteria for exemption, allowing the appellant to benefit from the notification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for exemption under Notification No.20/2002 for supplying goods to power projects, as the Commissioner&#039;s findings on Customs duty were deemed erroneous. The Tribunal also noted that the Department could not deny the refund claimed by the appellant for a short period of duty payment made in error.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>