<?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 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88855</link>
    <description>A conditional exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. did not compel the manufacturer to claim nil duty where the attached conditions were not satisfied. The Tribunal held that the assessee could elect to pay duty instead of availing the full exemption, and that a later Trade Notice could operate only prospectively. On that basis, the demand of duty and denial of Modvat credit were not sustainable against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:38:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88855</link>
      <description>A conditional exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. did not compel the manufacturer to claim nil duty where the attached conditions were not satisfied. The Tribunal held that the assessee could elect to pay duty instead of availing the full exemption, and that a later Trade Notice could operate only prospectively. On that basis, the demand of duty and denial of Modvat credit were not sustainable against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>