<?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>1999 (8) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92406</link>
    <description>Duty-free clearance of quality control samples under an exemption notification depended on compliance with the value limit and distinct packing requirements. The record showed that the assessee had claimed the benefit for separately described sample packs, while the departmental case rested on an isolated sample and did not read the classification lists as a whole. The document notes that the samples were not clearly shown to be for sale, and the department did not establish how many samples were retained in the factory or cleared. On that record, non-fulfilment of the notification conditions was not proved and the exemption benefit was held to remain available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:43:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 281 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92406</link>
      <description>Duty-free clearance of quality control samples under an exemption notification depended on compliance with the value limit and distinct packing requirements. The record showed that the assessee had claimed the benefit for separately described sample packs, while the departmental case rested on an isolated sample and did not read the classification lists as a whole. The document notes that the samples were not clearly shown to be for sale, and the department did not establish how many samples were retained in the factory or cleared. On that record, non-fulfilment of the notification conditions was not proved and the exemption benefit was held to remain available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>