<?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>1998 (7) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89329</link>
    <description>An amendment to Notification No. 217/86, excluding inputs used in final products cleared at nil duty, was treated as clarificatory and therefore retrospective. On that basis, the amended exclusion did not defeat exemption for the disputed period covered by the show cause notices, and the denial of benefit was found unsustainable. The assessee was consequently regarded as entitled to the notification benefit for that period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:08:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89329</link>
      <description>An amendment to Notification No. 217/86, excluding inputs used in final products cleared at nil duty, was treated as clarificatory and therefore retrospective. On that basis, the amended exclusion did not defeat exemption for the disputed period covered by the show cause notices, and the denial of benefit was found unsustainable. The assessee was consequently regarded as entitled to the notification benefit for that period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>