<?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>1992 (10) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82173</link>
    <description>An exemption notification excluding paper described as carbon, copying and transfer paper was interpreted by its functional description, not by tariff sub-heading. Self copy paper, being chemically treated paper used to reproduce the original by pressure, was treated as falling within the excluded category and was therefore not eligible for the exemption. In the companion matter, a corrected show cause notice was not treated as a fresh proceeding because the substantive basis remained denial of the same exemption under the same tariff framework. The procedural correction did not change the foundation of the demand, so the notice and demand remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 14:52:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82173</link>
      <description>An exemption notification excluding paper described as carbon, copying and transfer paper was interpreted by its functional description, not by tariff sub-heading. Self copy paper, being chemically treated paper used to reproduce the original by pressure, was treated as falling within the excluded category and was therefore not eligible for the exemption. In the companion matter, a corrected show cause notice was not treated as a fresh proceeding because the substantive basis remained denial of the same exemption under the same tariff framework. The procedural correction did not change the foundation of the demand, so the notice and demand remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>