<?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 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93543</link>
    <description>For small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., first clearances had to be computed chronologically on the aggregate value of all specified goods cleared under multiple headings. Duty-paid clearances could not be excluded from the exemption computation, because the ceiling applied to the total value of first clearances and not separately to each heading. The Tribunal noted that this interpretation had already been settled by the Supreme Court and held that the exemption could not be extended by leaving out goods cleared on payment of duty under one heading; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:03:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93543</link>
      <description>For small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., first clearances had to be computed chronologically on the aggregate value of all specified goods cleared under multiple headings. Duty-paid clearances could not be excluded from the exemption computation, because the ceiling applied to the total value of first clearances and not separately to each heading. The Tribunal noted that this interpretation had already been settled by the Supreme Court and held that the exemption could not be extended by leaving out goods cleared on payment of duty under one heading; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>