<?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 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93539</link>
    <description>A conditional exemption notification cannot be claimed unless its stipulated conditions are strictly fulfilled; here, prior findings that the conditions of Notification No. 51/78-C.E. were not met, including use of grid power through station transformers for auxiliaries, governed the matter and the exemption was denied. The duty demand, after the Commissioner had already excluded time-barred and overlapping amounts, was sustained because no contrary calculation displaced the remaining confirmed demand and the earlier view on extended limitation stood affirmed. The penalty was nevertheless deleted because, despite the confirmed duty liability, the assessee was a State Government undertaking and the circumstances of the old electricity duty dispute did not justify continuing the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:55:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93539</link>
      <description>A conditional exemption notification cannot be claimed unless its stipulated conditions are strictly fulfilled; here, prior findings that the conditions of Notification No. 51/78-C.E. were not met, including use of grid power through station transformers for auxiliaries, governed the matter and the exemption was denied. The duty demand, after the Commissioner had already excluded time-barred and overlapping amounts, was sustained because no contrary calculation displaced the remaining confirmed demand and the earlier view on extended limitation stood affirmed. The penalty was nevertheless deleted because, despite the confirmed duty liability, the assessee was a State Government undertaking and the circumstances of the old electricity duty dispute did not justify continuing the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>