<?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 (1) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85978</link>
    <description>An exemption notification that requires notice of intention but prescribes no special form may be satisfied by declarations in the classification list and a timely request for extension, so the substantive benefit cannot be denied merely because the extension request was not disposed of. By contrast, where a later notification expressly requires a written undertaking to the Assistant Collector, that condition must be complied with and a classification list is not a substitute; the benefit was therefore denied. A disputed change in the method of manufacture turned on factual verification and was remanded for de novo examination by the jurisdictional officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:18:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85978</link>
      <description>An exemption notification that requires notice of intention but prescribes no special form may be satisfied by declarations in the classification list and a timely request for extension, so the substantive benefit cannot be denied merely because the extension request was not disposed of. By contrast, where a later notification expressly requires a written undertaking to the Assistant Collector, that condition must be complied with and a classification list is not a substitute; the benefit was therefore denied. A disputed change in the method of manufacture turned on factual verification and was remanded for de novo examination by the jurisdictional officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>