<?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 (1) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74746</link>
    <description>The exemption notification turned on the meaning of &quot;supplied directly&quot; in the context of medicines routed through E.S.I.C.-approved retail chemist shops. The arrangement was treated as a supply under the E.S.I.C. scheme, with the approved chemist shops functioning as outlets for the Government department and sales made on contractual terms fixed with E.S.I.C. The limited remand was confined to the factual verifications directed by the higher appellate authority and could not widen the inquiry. On that basis, the expression &quot;directly&quot; was construed broadly enough to include supply through such approved outlets, and the supplies were held eligible for the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:22:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74746</link>
      <description>The exemption notification turned on the meaning of &quot;supplied directly&quot; in the context of medicines routed through E.S.I.C.-approved retail chemist shops. The arrangement was treated as a supply under the E.S.I.C. scheme, with the approved chemist shops functioning as outlets for the Government department and sales made on contractual terms fixed with E.S.I.C. The limited remand was confined to the factual verifications directed by the higher appellate authority and could not widen the inquiry. On that basis, the expression &quot;directly&quot; was construed broadly enough to include supply through such approved outlets, and the supplies were held eligible for the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>