<?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>2001 (1) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95286</link>
    <description>A deeming provision for khandsari molasses was confined to duty recovery at the consumption point and could not be expanded to treat the procurer as an actual manufacturer for small scale exemption notifications. Because the exemption scheme applied to manufacturers and depended on factory, clearance and manufacture conditions, the procurer was held outside its scope and the exemption claim failed. On limitation, the notices were found to have been issued and received within the relevant period, and the limitation objection was not substantiated. The legal fiction was therefore kept within its stated purpose, and the Revenue&#039;s position prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:41:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95286</link>
      <description>A deeming provision for khandsari molasses was confined to duty recovery at the consumption point and could not be expanded to treat the procurer as an actual manufacturer for small scale exemption notifications. Because the exemption scheme applied to manufacturers and depended on factory, clearance and manufacture conditions, the procurer was held outside its scope and the exemption claim failed. On limitation, the notices were found to have been issued and received within the relevant period, and the limitation objection was not substantiated. The legal fiction was therefore kept within its stated purpose, and the Revenue&#039;s position prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>