<?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 (11) TMI 663 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103755</link>
    <description>Excisable goods remain chargeable to central excise duty under the charging provision unless covered by an operative exemption notification under Section 5A. For the relevant period, the patent or proprietary medicaments were not shown to be covered by any exemption notification in force, and no notification under Section 11C was established. On that basis, the medicaments were liable to central excise duty for the period in question, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:34:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 663 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103755</link>
      <description>Excisable goods remain chargeable to central excise duty under the charging provision unless covered by an operative exemption notification under Section 5A. For the relevant period, the patent or proprietary medicaments were not shown to be covered by any exemption notification in force, and no notification under Section 11C was established. On that basis, the medicaments were liable to central excise duty for the period in question, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>