<?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>Appeal dismissed; exemption for machinery used in solar power includes module mounting structures despite earlier procedural non-compliance</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92268</link>
    <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, holding that the respondent was entitled to the exemption notification for &quot;all items of machinery required for setting up of solar power generation,&quot; which sufficiently includes module mounting structures. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption notifications are strictly construed to determine ambit but liberally applied when entitlement is established. The inclusive examples do not restrict the main definition. Procedural non-compliance in failing to produce a certificate at clearance was remedied by subsequent production; substantive benefit could not be denied for bureaucratic delay. The impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed; exemption for machinery used in solar power includes module mounting structures despite earlier procedural non-compliance</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92268</link>
      <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, holding that the respondent was entitled to the exemption notification for &quot;all items of machinery required for setting up of solar power generation,&quot; which sufficiently includes module mounting structures. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption notifications are strictly construed to determine ambit but liberally applied when entitlement is established. The inclusive examples do not restrict the main definition. Procedural non-compliance in failing to produce a certificate at clearance was remedied by subsequent production; substantive benefit could not be denied for bureaucratic delay. The impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>