<?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 (10) TMI 542 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100798</link>
    <description>CEGAT, Mumbai considered whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery after denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/95. The Tribunal distinguished the earlier decision relied upon by the appellants because that case turned on the absence of a show-cause allegation on the scope of the exemption entry, whereas the impugned order had specifically found that vacuum cleaners supplied to a 100% export-oriented unit were used only for cleaning the factory and not for manufacture or packing of articles. On that basis, the Tribunal held that a strong prima facie case for total waiver was not established, but partial relief was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:28:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 542 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100798</link>
      <description>CEGAT, Mumbai considered whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery after denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/95. The Tribunal distinguished the earlier decision relied upon by the appellants because that case turned on the absence of a show-cause allegation on the scope of the exemption entry, whereas the impugned order had specifically found that vacuum cleaners supplied to a 100% export-oriented unit were used only for cleaning the factory and not for manufacture or packing of articles. On that basis, the Tribunal held that a strong prima facie case for total waiver was not established, but partial relief was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>