<?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>2009 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34736</link>
    <description>Desalination plants cleared to the Ministry of Defence were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., as amended, because the exemption covered machinery, apparatus, auxiliary equipment and parts required for water treatment plants, and the explanation expressly brought desalination plants within that category. The Board&#039;s circular supported extension of the benefit even where the full plant was supplied, and the competent district authority&#039;s certificate confirmed that the goods were intended for potable water supply and met the prescribed condition. An interpretation that denied relief on the basis of a distinction between imported and indigenously manufactured plants was found inconsistent with the object of the exemption, so the duty demand, interest and penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34736</link>
      <description>Desalination plants cleared to the Ministry of Defence were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., as amended, because the exemption covered machinery, apparatus, auxiliary equipment and parts required for water treatment plants, and the explanation expressly brought desalination plants within that category. The Board&#039;s circular supported extension of the benefit even where the full plant was supplied, and the competent district authority&#039;s certificate confirmed that the goods were intended for potable water supply and met the prescribed condition. An interpretation that denied relief on the basis of a distinction between imported and indigenously manufactured plants was found inconsistent with the object of the exemption, so the duty demand, interest and penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>