<?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 789 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103687</link>
    <description>A substantive amendment to an exemption notification operates prospectively unless the notification expressly provides retrospective effect. Here, the amendment expanded the value of clearances by including exports to Bhutan or Nepal in the home-consumption computation, but the relevant clearances had been made before the amending notification came into force. As no retrospective intent was indicated, the amended explanation could not be applied to past clearances, and the inclusion of the Nepal export clearances in the value calculation was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessee succeeded on the retrospective-application issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:01:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 789 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103687</link>
      <description>A substantive amendment to an exemption notification operates prospectively unless the notification expressly provides retrospective effect. Here, the amendment expanded the value of clearances by including exports to Bhutan or Nepal in the home-consumption computation, but the relevant clearances had been made before the amending notification came into force. As no retrospective intent was indicated, the amended explanation could not be applied to past clearances, and the inclusion of the Nepal export clearances in the value calculation was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessee succeeded on the retrospective-application issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>