<?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>1988 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73643</link>
    <description>Exemption eligibility under Notification No. 89/79 was to be assessed on the capital investment in the industrial unit as a whole, including common plant and machinery used for the exempted goods, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination on that basis. Valuation of solvent cement was to be re-examined by treating DGS&amp;D supplies as a distinct class and using the DGS&amp;D-linked price rather than the price charged to other buyers. The declaration omission for the alternative claim under Notification No. 201/79 was treated as a procedural formality and was condoned in view of the departmental clarification, so that claim was also directed to be reconsidered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:45:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73643</link>
      <description>Exemption eligibility under Notification No. 89/79 was to be assessed on the capital investment in the industrial unit as a whole, including common plant and machinery used for the exempted goods, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination on that basis. Valuation of solvent cement was to be re-examined by treating DGS&amp;D supplies as a distinct class and using the DGS&amp;D-linked price rather than the price charged to other buyers. The declaration omission for the alternative claim under Notification No. 201/79 was treated as a procedural formality and was condoned in view of the departmental clarification, so that claim was also directed to be reconsidered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>