<?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>1994 (3) TMI 209 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83122</link>
    <description>The appeal by M/s. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim for differential Auxiliary duty was dismissed. The dispute centered on the effective date of Notification No. 284/90 dated 15-12-1990, with the appellants arguing that the notification only takes effect upon publication in the Official Gazette. Despite citing precedents emphasizing public availability, the appellants failed to provide a specific date of Gazette notification availability. As the burden of proof lay with the appellants, and lacking concrete evidence, the notification was deemed effective from its issue date. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:21:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 209 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83122</link>
      <description>The appeal by M/s. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim for differential Auxiliary duty was dismissed. The dispute centered on the effective date of Notification No. 284/90 dated 15-12-1990, with the appellants arguing that the notification only takes effect upon publication in the Official Gazette. Despite citing precedents emphasizing public availability, the appellants failed to provide a specific date of Gazette notification availability. As the burden of proof lay with the appellants, and lacking concrete evidence, the notification was deemed effective from its issue date. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>