<?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 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83405</link>
    <description>An amending exemption notification was treated as clarificatory rather than prospective, so it operated to explain the original excise exemption scheme and to reflect the Government&#039;s intention from the outset. On that basis, the denial of exemption for the period before the amendment could not be sustained, and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of the original notification read with the amendment from its inception.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:21:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83405</link>
      <description>An amending exemption notification was treated as clarificatory rather than prospective, so it operated to explain the original excise exemption scheme and to reflect the Government&#039;s intention from the outset. On that basis, the denial of exemption for the period before the amendment could not be sustained, and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of the original notification read with the amendment from its inception.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>