<?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 (11) TMI 791 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98403</link>
    <description>Notification No. 38/97-C.E. made exemption conditional on the manufacturer exercising the option in writing and informing the excise authority of the prescribed particulars, including the unit&#039;s identity and location, the goods manufactured, the date of option, and aggregate clearances. A mere reference to the notification in the classification list did not satisfy these mandatory requirements, and a later declaration did not cure the earlier default. The conditions were treated as substantive and mandatory rather than procedural, so partial compliance was insufficient and the exemption benefit was unavailable for the period in dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 791 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98403</link>
      <description>Notification No. 38/97-C.E. made exemption conditional on the manufacturer exercising the option in writing and informing the excise authority of the prescribed particulars, including the unit&#039;s identity and location, the goods manufactured, the date of option, and aggregate clearances. A mere reference to the notification in the classification list did not satisfy these mandatory requirements, and a later declaration did not cure the earlier default. The conditions were treated as substantive and mandatory rather than procedural, so partial compliance was insufficient and the exemption benefit was unavailable for the period in dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>