<?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 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73428</link>
    <description>Substantial compliance with an exemption notification may suffice where the Department already possesses the relevant particulars and the assessee has otherwise operated under regular excise control. The absence of a separate formal declaration was treated as a curable procedural lapse, so benefit of Notification No. 80/80 was allowed. Once the exemption applied, the disputed clearances were not dutiable to that extent, and the alleged shortages or record discrepancies could not sustain duty demand, penalty, or confiscation. The Tribunal thus treated the procedural omission as insufficient to deny substantive exemption or to impose penal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 18:05:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73428</link>
      <description>Substantial compliance with an exemption notification may suffice where the Department already possesses the relevant particulars and the assessee has otherwise operated under regular excise control. The absence of a separate formal declaration was treated as a curable procedural lapse, so benefit of Notification No. 80/80 was allowed. Once the exemption applied, the disputed clearances were not dutiable to that extent, and the alleged shortages or record discrepancies could not sustain duty demand, penalty, or confiscation. The Tribunal thus treated the procedural omission as insufficient to deny substantive exemption or to impose penal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>