<?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 394 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92045</link>
    <description>Denial of exemption on office furniture and allied items supplied to a 100% Export Oriented Unit was unsustainable because the show cause notice did not clearly state the basis on which the goods were treated as ineligible; a demand cannot rest on a ground first introduced in the adjudication order. Duty also could not be fastened on the manufacturer-supplier who cleared the goods against a valid CT-3 certificate, because the notification&#039;s end-use obligation lay on the beneficiary user unit. Where any breach concerned the user&#039;s compliance with the exemption condition, action lay against the beneficiary unit, not the supplier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:17:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 394 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92045</link>
      <description>Denial of exemption on office furniture and allied items supplied to a 100% Export Oriented Unit was unsustainable because the show cause notice did not clearly state the basis on which the goods were treated as ineligible; a demand cannot rest on a ground first introduced in the adjudication order. Duty also could not be fastened on the manufacturer-supplier who cleared the goods against a valid CT-3 certificate, because the notification&#039;s end-use obligation lay on the beneficiary user unit. Where any breach concerned the user&#039;s compliance with the exemption condition, action lay against the beneficiary unit, not the supplier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>