<?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 (6) TMI 142 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54277</link>
    <description>An exemption for a turbine applied where the goods cleared under the customer contract were the turbine generator and associated equipment, not a detachable part of the turbine. On the accepted factual position, the factory removals constituted the turbine assembly itself. Since the relevant exemption entry covered a turbine and not parts of a turbine, the benefit was available to the respondents. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:44:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 142 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54277</link>
      <description>An exemption for a turbine applied where the goods cleared under the customer contract were the turbine generator and associated equipment, not a detachable part of the turbine. On the accepted factual position, the factory removals constituted the turbine assembly itself. Since the relevant exemption entry covered a turbine and not parts of a turbine, the benefit was available to the respondents. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>