<?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>1995 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84135</link>
    <description>Duty-paid status under an exemption notification may be inferred for raw materials purchased from steel manufacturers in the market, because excise duty is ordinarily levied on the manufacturer and removal follows payment of duty. The stated approach treats such purchases as carrying a presumption of duty payment unless the department proves otherwise. On that reasoning, the absence of duty-paying documents for every quantity does not by itself defeat the exemption, since the buyer is not expected to verify the manufacturer&#039;s tax compliance in ordinary market transactions. The department must therefore bring contrary evidence before denying the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:38:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84135</link>
      <description>Duty-paid status under an exemption notification may be inferred for raw materials purchased from steel manufacturers in the market, because excise duty is ordinarily levied on the manufacturer and removal follows payment of duty. The stated approach treats such purchases as carrying a presumption of duty payment unless the department proves otherwise. On that reasoning, the absence of duty-paying documents for every quantity does not by itself defeat the exemption, since the buyer is not expected to verify the manufacturer&#039;s tax compliance in ordinary market transactions. The department must therefore bring contrary evidence before denying the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>