<?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 (11) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86053</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the respondents in a dispute over exemption eligibility under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The department&#039;s attempt to combine the clearances of the respondents with another entity to deny the exemption was rejected. The Tribunal found that the respondents, as job workers for the other entity, did not meet the criteria for clubbing clearances and should be treated as independent manufacturers. Emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the department&#039;s claim, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, stating that the proceedings were misdirected against the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:31:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86053</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the respondents in a dispute over exemption eligibility under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The department&#039;s attempt to combine the clearances of the respondents with another entity to deny the exemption was rejected. The Tribunal found that the respondents, as job workers for the other entity, did not meet the criteria for clubbing clearances and should be treated as independent manufacturers. Emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the department&#039;s claim, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, stating that the proceedings were misdirected against the respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>