<?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 (8) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93985</link>
    <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was allowed where the applicants showed the hearing had been adjourned because the Bench was unavailable and they were actively pursuing connected matters, so their absence did not indicate lack of interest. Exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E. was held admissible because the decisive factor was the nature of the original input used in manufacture; wire rods and wires received in the factory exceeded 6 mm, and an intermediate reduction below that size was only a technical necessity that did not defeat the statutory condition. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:17:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93985</link>
      <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was allowed where the applicants showed the hearing had been adjourned because the Bench was unavailable and they were actively pursuing connected matters, so their absence did not indicate lack of interest. Exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E. was held admissible because the decisive factor was the nature of the original input used in manufacture; wire rods and wires received in the factory exceeded 6 mm, and an intermediate reduction below that size was only a technical necessity that did not defeat the statutory condition. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>