<?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>2004 (7) TMI 230 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53338</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods claimed to be required for an Asian Development Bank-financed project was available only on production of the prescribed project certificate linking the goods to that specified project. The certificate had to be issued by the Head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the notified Government officer, and the claimant had to clearly prove direct supply for the project. As the goods were not shown to have been supplied directly for the project and the certificate did not identify the claimant as the supplier, the exemption claim failed. Any ambiguity in exemption entitlement is construed against the claimant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:52:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 230 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53338</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods claimed to be required for an Asian Development Bank-financed project was available only on production of the prescribed project certificate linking the goods to that specified project. The certificate had to be issued by the Head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the notified Government officer, and the claimant had to clearly prove direct supply for the project. As the goods were not shown to have been supplied directly for the project and the certificate did not identify the claimant as the supplier, the exemption claim failed. Any ambiguity in exemption entitlement is construed against the claimant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>