<?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>2000 (1) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93377</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 132/86-C.E. depended on the finished goods being made from inputs on which excise duty had already been paid, and the assessee had to prove compliance with that condition. The appellants failed to substantiate that the raw materials met the duty-paid requirement, so the exemption claim was rejected. On penalty, the circumstances were found insufficient to justify imposition, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:37:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93377</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 132/86-C.E. depended on the finished goods being made from inputs on which excise duty had already been paid, and the assessee had to prove compliance with that condition. The appellants failed to substantiate that the raw materials met the duty-paid requirement, so the exemption claim was rejected. On penalty, the circumstances were found insufficient to justify imposition, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>