<?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>1998 (8) TMI 399 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94370</link>
    <description>An exemption notification requiring saloon cars to be cleared for use as taxis treated the first condition as a pre-clearance requirement, satisfied when the department accepted taxi permits and purchase orders; absent forged or fictitious documents, that satisfaction could not be reopened later to deny the concession. The second condition required production of the prescribed registration certificates within the stipulated period, and once genuine certificates were furnished, the manufacturer was not liable for duty merely because some vehicles were later diverted from taxi use. The department could examine only the genuineness of the certificates, not impose a continuing post-clearance obligation without express language in the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:29:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 399 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94370</link>
      <description>An exemption notification requiring saloon cars to be cleared for use as taxis treated the first condition as a pre-clearance requirement, satisfied when the department accepted taxi permits and purchase orders; absent forged or fictitious documents, that satisfaction could not be reopened later to deny the concession. The second condition required production of the prescribed registration certificates within the stipulated period, and once genuine certificates were furnished, the manufacturer was not liable for duty merely because some vehicles were later diverted from taxi use. The department could examine only the genuineness of the certificates, not impose a continuing post-clearance obligation without express language in the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>