<?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 (10) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91576</link>
    <description>Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for Furagyl Suspension containing Metronidazole Benzoate was upheld where the added ester did not alter the applicable notification benefit. The denial based on the absence of a relevant classification list for the material year and the alleged need for departmental disclosure was rejected, as the Tribunal followed an earlier Special Bench ruling on the same ingredient and similar facts and also noted a consistent view in another comparable appeal. On that basis, the assessee qualified for the exemption and the refusal to extend the notification was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:04:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91576</link>
      <description>Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for Furagyl Suspension containing Metronidazole Benzoate was upheld where the added ester did not alter the applicable notification benefit. The denial based on the absence of a relevant classification list for the material year and the alleged need for departmental disclosure was rejected, as the Tribunal followed an earlier Special Bench ruling on the same ingredient and similar facts and also noted a consistent view in another comparable appeal. On that basis, the assessee qualified for the exemption and the refusal to extend the notification was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>