<?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 (9) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82873</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit was admissible on inputs covered by exemption notifications where the Department failed to prove that the conditions for full exemption were actually satisfied. The Tribunal held that a conditional exemption notification does not, by itself, establish that goods purchased from the open market are non-duty paid or liable to nil rate of duty. Because no evidence showed that the notification conditions were met in respect of the inputs, the Department could not show that the goods were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The matter was treated as governed by earlier precedent, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:12:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82873</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit was admissible on inputs covered by exemption notifications where the Department failed to prove that the conditions for full exemption were actually satisfied. The Tribunal held that a conditional exemption notification does not, by itself, establish that goods purchased from the open market are non-duty paid or liable to nil rate of duty. Because no evidence showed that the notification conditions were met in respect of the inputs, the Department could not show that the goods were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The matter was treated as governed by earlier precedent, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>