<?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>1996 (4) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85607</link>
    <description>Duty liability was determined by the rate in force on the date of removal where the goods were already excisable at the time of manufacture. On that principle, goods manufactured before but cleared after Notification No. 115/86-C.E. came into force were entitled to the exemption. The order was also defective because it contained no finding on the plea of limitation, but the substantive issue on exemption was decisive and the impugned order was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85607</link>
      <description>Duty liability was determined by the rate in force on the date of removal where the goods were already excisable at the time of manufacture. On that principle, goods manufactured before but cleared after Notification No. 115/86-C.E. came into force were entitled to the exemption. The order was also defective because it contained no finding on the plea of limitation, but the substantive issue on exemption was decisive and the impugned order was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>