<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1145 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757441</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. was upheld for clearances of gear boxes and parts supplied to certified mega power projects through international competitive bidding. The appellant&#039;s contemporaneous project certificates, governmental confirmations and prior intimations to the Department established that the goods were actually received by identified mega power projects and that the notification conditions were satisfied. The objection that the goods were not covered because they were cleared under Heading 8483 rather than Heading 98.01 was rejected as a technical ground that could not defeat the substantive exemption. The duty demand was set aside, and the related interest and penalty also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:17:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1145 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757441</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. was upheld for clearances of gear boxes and parts supplied to certified mega power projects through international competitive bidding. The appellant&#039;s contemporaneous project certificates, governmental confirmations and prior intimations to the Department established that the goods were actually received by identified mega power projects and that the notification conditions were satisfied. The objection that the goods were not covered because they were cleared under Heading 8483 rather than Heading 98.01 was rejected as a technical ground that could not defeat the substantive exemption. The duty demand was set aside, and the related interest and penalty also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>