<?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 (2) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90462</link>
    <description>A breach of the conditions attached to Notification No. 245/83 in respect of some medicines did not justify denial of refund or exemption under Notification No. 45/82 for supplies made to Government departments. The supplies were not shown to fall outside Notification No. 45/82, and the record did not establish non-fulfilment of that notification&#039;s conditions. Any failure to obtain the benefit of Notification No. 245/83 for all covered medicines affected only entitlement under that separate notification. The benefit of Notification No. 45/82 therefore remained available and could not be refused merely because entitlement under Notification No. 245/83 was disputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:11:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90462</link>
      <description>A breach of the conditions attached to Notification No. 245/83 in respect of some medicines did not justify denial of refund or exemption under Notification No. 45/82 for supplies made to Government departments. The supplies were not shown to fall outside Notification No. 45/82, and the record did not establish non-fulfilment of that notification&#039;s conditions. Any failure to obtain the benefit of Notification No. 245/83 for all covered medicines affected only entitlement under that separate notification. The benefit of Notification No. 45/82 therefore remained available and could not be refused merely because entitlement under Notification No. 245/83 was disputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>