<?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>Condition No.47A compliance and Section 11D demand quashed; exemption granted for pipes used in water supply scheme</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93838</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeals of the anonymized appellants and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that Condition No. 47A of Notification No. 06/2002-C.E., as amended by N/N. 47/2002, was complied with by production of a district magistrate&#039;s certificate evidencing intended use of the pipes in a sanctioned water supply scheme; accordingly the assessee was entitled to exemption. A demand under Section 11D was held unsustainable because the goods were exempted and invoices did not separately reflect duty; prior Tribunal precedent applicable to the facts was followed. Consequentially, demands and penalties against the appellant-entity and its senior officer were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Condition No.47A compliance and Section 11D demand quashed; exemption granted for pipes used in water supply scheme</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93838</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeals of the anonymized appellants and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that Condition No. 47A of Notification No. 06/2002-C.E., as amended by N/N. 47/2002, was complied with by production of a district magistrate&#039;s certificate evidencing intended use of the pipes in a sanctioned water supply scheme; accordingly the assessee was entitled to exemption. A demand under Section 11D was held unsustainable because the goods were exempted and invoices did not separately reflect duty; prior Tribunal precedent applicable to the facts was followed. Consequentially, demands and penalties against the appellant-entity and its senior officer were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>