<?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 (7) TMI 129 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54057</link>
    <description>Tower and lattice mast materials used in wind operated electricity generators were treated as eligible parts for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., because the tower was necessary for the generator&#039;s operation and fell within the composite understanding of its parts. The omission of a separate reference to wind mill parts in the notification did not defeat the exemption where the goods were otherwise covered. On limitation, disclosure of the classification lists and exemption claim negatived suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period under the Central Excise law could not be invoked. The duty demand and personal penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 129 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54057</link>
      <description>Tower and lattice mast materials used in wind operated electricity generators were treated as eligible parts for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., because the tower was necessary for the generator&#039;s operation and fell within the composite understanding of its parts. The omission of a separate reference to wind mill parts in the notification did not defeat the exemption where the goods were otherwise covered. On limitation, disclosure of the classification lists and exemption claim negatived suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period under the Central Excise law could not be invoked. The duty demand and personal penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>