<?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 (9) TMI 731 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100877</link>
    <description>A claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. made in the classification list was treated as sufficient written intimation of the option to avail the benefit, because the notification did not require a separate intimation letter. The condition was regarded as substantially complied with, and exemption could not be denied on a purely formal objection of missing separate correspondence. On that basis, denial of the notification benefit for the disputed period was found unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:30:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 731 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100877</link>
      <description>A claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. made in the classification list was treated as sufficient written intimation of the option to avail the benefit, because the notification did not require a separate intimation letter. The condition was regarded as substantially complied with, and exemption could not be denied on a purely formal objection of missing separate correspondence. On that basis, denial of the notification benefit for the disputed period was found unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>