<?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>1997 (7) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86913</link>
    <description>Where the admissibility of an exemption had already been finally decided in an earlier appellate order, a later order confined to verification of figures and implementation could not be used to reopen the same issue. A fresh denial of exemption for rice bran residue used for steam and power generation was treated as beyond the limited remit left open and therefore without jurisdiction. The dispute was characterised as one of exemption for an input used in the manufacturing process, not remission for destruction. The department&#039;s appeal against the consequential verification order was held not maintainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption in principle, subject to verification of the relevant figures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:21:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86913</link>
      <description>Where the admissibility of an exemption had already been finally decided in an earlier appellate order, a later order confined to verification of figures and implementation could not be used to reopen the same issue. A fresh denial of exemption for rice bran residue used for steam and power generation was treated as beyond the limited remit left open and therefore without jurisdiction. The dispute was characterised as one of exemption for an input used in the manufacturing process, not remission for destruction. The department&#039;s appeal against the consequential verification order was held not maintainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption in principle, subject to verification of the relevant figures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>