<?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 (12) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111121</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was construed strictly, and the claim failed because the prescribed registration condition for the ambulances was not shown to be satisfied. The later inclusion of one beneficiary in the notification did not cure the defect for the relevant period. The exemption and refund claim was therefore not allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:30:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111121</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was construed strictly, and the claim failed because the prescribed registration condition for the ambulances was not shown to be satisfied. The later inclusion of one beneficiary in the notification did not cure the defect for the relevant period. The exemption and refund claim was therefore not allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>