<?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>1990 (3) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80507</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for additional duty was construed strictly, but in a way that gave effect to its purpose. The term &quot;wholly exempted&quot; was read as covering the quantity of a sugar variety on which no basic excise duty was actually payable under an exemption notification, not only varieties that were entirely outside the basic duty scheme. The fact that the varieties otherwise carried a basic duty rate did not by itself defeat the exemption where the underlying conditions were met. The contrary precedent was treated as distinguishable, the Tribunal view was accepted, and the additional duty exemption was applied on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:19:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80507</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for additional duty was construed strictly, but in a way that gave effect to its purpose. The term &quot;wholly exempted&quot; was read as covering the quantity of a sugar variety on which no basic excise duty was actually payable under an exemption notification, not only varieties that were entirely outside the basic duty scheme. The fact that the varieties otherwise carried a basic duty rate did not by itself defeat the exemption where the underlying conditions were met. The contrary precedent was treated as distinguishable, the Tribunal view was accepted, and the additional duty exemption was applied on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>