<?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>1987 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73136</link>
    <description>A retrospective exemption notification was held to cover wooden crates and cases manufactured for captive consumption in glass and glassware production, because the statutory deeming provision under the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 gave Notification No. 227/86-C.E. effect from 1-3-1986. The fact that the later notification also extended to goods cleared for home consumption did not limit its application to captively used goods. The retrospective exemption cured the gap created after the earlier notification was rescinded, so the assessee remained entitled to exemption and the duty demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 12:54:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73136</link>
      <description>A retrospective exemption notification was held to cover wooden crates and cases manufactured for captive consumption in glass and glassware production, because the statutory deeming provision under the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 gave Notification No. 227/86-C.E. effect from 1-3-1986. The fact that the later notification also extended to goods cleared for home consumption did not limit its application to captively used goods. The retrospective exemption cured the gap created after the earlier notification was rescinded, so the assessee remained entitled to exemption and the duty demand and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>