<?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 356 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54081</link>
    <description>Imported goods were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. for setting up a crude petroleum refinery because Phase II was shown to create an independent stand-alone refinery with separate facilities capable of independent operation. The distinction urged between &quot;initial setting up&quot; and &quot;substantial expansion&quot; was not treated as decisive, as the notification used only the expression &quot;setting up Crude Petroleum Refinery&quot; and was construed liberally to promote industrial activity. On that reading, phased establishment of an additional refinery was not excluded, and denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 356 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54081</link>
      <description>Imported goods were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. for setting up a crude petroleum refinery because Phase II was shown to create an independent stand-alone refinery with separate facilities capable of independent operation. The distinction urged between &quot;initial setting up&quot; and &quot;substantial expansion&quot; was not treated as decisive, as the notification used only the expression &quot;setting up Crude Petroleum Refinery&quot; and was construed liberally to promote industrial activity. On that reading, phased establishment of an additional refinery was not excluded, and denial of the exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>