<?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>Solar Inverter Exemption Denied: Tribunal Rules It&#039;s Not a Complete Solar Power System for Duty Exemption.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77691</link>
    <description>The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved the interpretation of an exemption notification u/s 12/2012-CE for Additional Duty. The issue was whether a &quot;Grid-Tied Solar Inverter&quot; could be considered a &quot;Solar Power Generating System&quot; for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal held that while the inverter is used in a solar system, it does not constitute the entire system. The respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the notification, thus not eligible for the exemption. The Commissioner&#039;s view of liberal interpretation was rejected, citing the burden of proof on the Revenue. The decision was in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Dilip Kumar and Company case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Solar Inverter Exemption Denied: Tribunal Rules It&#039;s Not a Complete Solar Power System for Duty Exemption.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77691</link>
      <description>The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved the interpretation of an exemption notification u/s 12/2012-CE for Additional Duty. The issue was whether a &quot;Grid-Tied Solar Inverter&quot; could be considered a &quot;Solar Power Generating System&quot; for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal held that while the inverter is used in a solar system, it does not constitute the entire system. The respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the notification, thus not eligible for the exemption. The Commissioner&#039;s view of liberal interpretation was rejected, citing the burden of proof on the Revenue. The decision was in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Dilip Kumar and Company case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>