<?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 (11) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87445</link>
    <description>An exemption notification was construed strictly and confined to the goods and uses expressly covered by its terms. Stationary diesel-operated internal combustion engines were held outside Notification No. 75/86 because the main exemption, read with its proviso, was limited to motor vehicles, tractors, trailers and related internal combustion engines used as original equipment; the proviso could not expand coverage to unrelated stationary engines. On limitation, a demand confirmed under Chapter X read with Rule 196 was held not to attract the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A, so the limitation objection failed. The duty and penalty order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:07:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87445</link>
      <description>An exemption notification was construed strictly and confined to the goods and uses expressly covered by its terms. Stationary diesel-operated internal combustion engines were held outside Notification No. 75/86 because the main exemption, read with its proviso, was limited to motor vehicles, tractors, trailers and related internal combustion engines used as original equipment; the proviso could not expand coverage to unrelated stationary engines. On limitation, a demand confirmed under Chapter X read with Rule 196 was held not to attract the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A, so the limitation objection failed. The duty and penalty order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>