<?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 (4) TMI 681 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98906</link>
    <description>Benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was held to remain available for computing duty on the appellants&#039; clearances for 1994-95, and non-maintenance of records or failure to observe excise formalities did not by itself justify denial of the exemption. The duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, and even where removals were treated as clandestine, the exemption benefit had to be extended if otherwise applicable. The job work was to be treated in accordance with law as the appellants&#039; own manufacture and clearances. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision after personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 681 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98906</link>
      <description>Benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was held to remain available for computing duty on the appellants&#039; clearances for 1994-95, and non-maintenance of records or failure to observe excise formalities did not by itself justify denial of the exemption. The duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, and even where removals were treated as clandestine, the exemption benefit had to be extended if otherwise applicable. The job work was to be treated in accordance with law as the appellants&#039; own manufacture and clearances. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision after personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>