<?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 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92572</link>
    <description>A concessional duty notification for bulk drugs could not be denied merely for absence of an end-use certificate where the notification did not make such certification a condition. Sorbitol 70% IP, supplied for use in manufacturing Vitamin-C, was treated as eligible for the concessional rate because it otherwise satisfied the notification&#039;s scope. The departmental objection based only on the certificate was rejected, and the exemption benefit was held admissible, with the demand and penalty not surviving.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92572</link>
      <description>A concessional duty notification for bulk drugs could not be denied merely for absence of an end-use certificate where the notification did not make such certification a condition. Sorbitol 70% IP, supplied for use in manufacturing Vitamin-C, was treated as eligible for the concessional rate because it otherwise satisfied the notification&#039;s scope. The departmental objection based only on the certificate was rejected, and the exemption benefit was held admissible, with the demand and penalty not surviving.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>