<?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 (5) TMI 445 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109859</link>
    <description>Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could not be denied where the assessee despatched the option letter within time and also filed the required declaration, even though the department received the letter a few days later because of holidays and office-level refusal to accept the papers. On these facts, the option was treated as validly exercised in substance within the prescribed time, and a purely technical objection based on the date of departmental receipt was insufficient to defeat the exemption claim. The consequential differential duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 445 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109859</link>
      <description>Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could not be denied where the assessee despatched the option letter within time and also filed the required declaration, even though the department received the letter a few days later because of holidays and office-level refusal to accept the papers. On these facts, the option was treated as validly exercised in substance within the prescribed time, and a purely technical objection based on the date of departmental receipt was insufficient to defeat the exemption claim. The consequential differential duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>