<?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 (9) TMI 209 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54935</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. applied to goods cleared for an approved World Bank-financed project where the prescribed certificate had been produced before clearance and the department accepted clearance on that basis. Pending financing at the time of removal did not, on the facts recorded, defeat compliance with the notification conditions. As the clearances were made under a bona fide belief of eligibility and there was no misdeclaration or breach of the exemption requirements, invocation of the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was unsustainable and the connected duty demand, interest and penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 209 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54935</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. applied to goods cleared for an approved World Bank-financed project where the prescribed certificate had been produced before clearance and the department accepted clearance on that basis. Pending financing at the time of removal did not, on the facts recorded, defeat compliance with the notification conditions. As the clearances were made under a bona fide belief of eligibility and there was no misdeclaration or breach of the exemption requirements, invocation of the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was unsustainable and the connected duty demand, interest and penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>