<?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>2003 (6) TMI 253 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107589</link>
    <description>A conditional excise exemption can be claimed only on strict compliance with the prescribed statutory and procedural requirements. The assessee&#039;s claim failed because it had not obtained an L6 licence, had not procured the CT-2 certificate, and had not followed the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Mere use of the explosives in manufacture did not by itself confer duty-free entitlement where the notification made compliance mandatory. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on its facts because it concerned duty paid under protest and a different procedural setting. The exemption and related refund claim were therefore rejected, and Revenue&#039;s position was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:41:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 253 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107589</link>
      <description>A conditional excise exemption can be claimed only on strict compliance with the prescribed statutory and procedural requirements. The assessee&#039;s claim failed because it had not obtained an L6 licence, had not procured the CT-2 certificate, and had not followed the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Mere use of the explosives in manufacture did not by itself confer duty-free entitlement where the notification made compliance mandatory. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on its facts because it concerned duty paid under protest and a different procedural setting. The exemption and related refund claim were therefore rejected, and Revenue&#039;s position was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>