<?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>2005 (2) TMI 336 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54012</link>
    <description>An exemption for goods manufactured at a contractor&#039;s Railway-allotted site was applied liberally, as manufacture at the &quot;site of construction&quot; was treated broadly enough to cover a site made available for the contract work; the mere distance from the exact construction point did not defeat the exemption. The demand was also held time-barred because there was no material showing suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, and the contractor&#039;s bona fide belief was supported by the contractual exemption stipulation. On both grounds, the exemption claim and the limitation defence succeeded, and the demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:24:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 336 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54012</link>
      <description>An exemption for goods manufactured at a contractor&#039;s Railway-allotted site was applied liberally, as manufacture at the &quot;site of construction&quot; was treated broadly enough to cover a site made available for the contract work; the mere distance from the exact construction point did not defeat the exemption. The demand was also held time-barred because there was no material showing suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, and the contractor&#039;s bona fide belief was supported by the contractual exemption stipulation. On both grounds, the exemption claim and the limitation defence succeeded, and the demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>