<?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>1999 (11) TMI 626 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98104</link>
    <description>A conditional exemption under Notification No. 64/86 required strict compliance with Chapter X procedures when goods were used in another factory. The benefit of the notification was available only on fulfilment of those prescribed conditions, and prior payment of duty did not by itself justify refund. Procedural compliance was treated as a mandatory prerequisite to the exemption, so refund could not be granted in its absence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:06:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 626 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98104</link>
      <description>A conditional exemption under Notification No. 64/86 required strict compliance with Chapter X procedures when goods were used in another factory. The benefit of the notification was available only on fulfilment of those prescribed conditions, and prior payment of duty did not by itself justify refund. Procedural compliance was treated as a mandatory prerequisite to the exemption, so refund could not be granted in its absence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>