<?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>1990 (1) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93116</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing orders passed by the Government of India under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was determined that the Board&#039;s attempt to provide fresh directions on quantification, after the Government had already settled the matter, was impermissible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Board&#039;s orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants. Additionally, a separate judgment clarified that protests for levy purposes do not automatically extend to exemption claims under Notifications, but in this case, the appellants, a small-scale industry, successfully protested against valuation issues impacting their eligibility for exemptions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:57:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93116</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing orders passed by the Government of India under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was determined that the Board&#039;s attempt to provide fresh directions on quantification, after the Government had already settled the matter, was impermissible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Board&#039;s orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants. Additionally, a separate judgment clarified that protests for levy purposes do not automatically extend to exemption claims under Notifications, but in this case, the appellants, a small-scale industry, successfully protested against valuation issues impacting their eligibility for exemptions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>