<?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>2010 (11) TMI 13 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78472</link>
    <description>Excise exemption under the relevant notifications was available only on strict compliance with the Chapter X procedure, because the prescribed steps were part of the substance of the exemption scheme. Substantial compliance could not cure failure to obtain the required registrations, file declarations, execute bonds, secure certificates, or follow the other mandatory steps at both supplier and recipient ends. Mere maintenance of records at the recipient unit was insufficient, and the plea of intended use was rejected. The SC also confined Thermax and J.K. Synthetics to their facts and declined to treat them as laying down a general rule for this controversy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 17:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 13 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78472</link>
      <description>Excise exemption under the relevant notifications was available only on strict compliance with the Chapter X procedure, because the prescribed steps were part of the substance of the exemption scheme. Substantial compliance could not cure failure to obtain the required registrations, file declarations, execute bonds, secure certificates, or follow the other mandatory steps at both supplier and recipient ends. Mere maintenance of records at the recipient unit was insufficient, and the plea of intended use was rejected. The SC also confined Thermax and J.K. Synthetics to their facts and declined to treat them as laying down a general rule for this controversy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>