<?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 (7) TMI 500 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95665</link>
    <description>Inputs cleared under an exemption notification were treated as satisfying the duty-paid requirement in exemption and Modvat-linked conditions where the notification used the expression &quot;already paid&quot;. The benefit could not be denied merely because the inputs themselves were exempt and no Modvat credit had been taken. Departmental circulars and trade notices were regarded as consistent with this interpretation and binding on the department. On that basis, the exemption conditions were held to be met, the demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded on merits; the limitation objection was left unexamined as academic.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:34:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 500 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95665</link>
      <description>Inputs cleared under an exemption notification were treated as satisfying the duty-paid requirement in exemption and Modvat-linked conditions where the notification used the expression &quot;already paid&quot;. The benefit could not be denied merely because the inputs themselves were exempt and no Modvat credit had been taken. Departmental circulars and trade notices were regarded as consistent with this interpretation and binding on the department. On that basis, the exemption conditions were held to be met, the demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded on merits; the limitation objection was left unexamined as academic.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>