<?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>2002 (5) TMI 633 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104876</link>
    <description>An exemption notification that makes compliance with a prescribed procedure part of the entitlement must be strictly satisfied; because the assessee did not follow Chapter X procedure, the Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. was denied and that denial was sustained. On penalty, the Tribunal treated the lapse as a nominal procedural default rather than conduct warranting penal action, so the penalty was set aside. The operative principle is that procedural conditions embedded in an exemption notification are mandatory for availing the benefit, while a separate penalty may still fail where the facts do not justify its imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:29:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 633 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104876</link>
      <description>An exemption notification that makes compliance with a prescribed procedure part of the entitlement must be strictly satisfied; because the assessee did not follow Chapter X procedure, the Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. was denied and that denial was sustained. On penalty, the Tribunal treated the lapse as a nominal procedural default rather than conduct warranting penal action, so the penalty was set aside. The operative principle is that procedural conditions embedded in an exemption notification are mandatory for availing the benefit, while a separate penalty may still fail where the facts do not justify its imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>