<?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>2004 (12) TMI 456 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114823</link>
    <description>Where exemption notifications operate in sequence, a later notification cannot be claimed before the exemption limit under the earlier notification has been fully exhausted, if the scheme does not permit simultaneous or premature switching. On a joint reading of the two notifications, the assessee, having already availed full exemption under the earlier notification, could not shift to the later notification while the earlier benefit remained unexhausted. The entitlement under the later notification arose only after the first notification&#039;s limit had been completely used, so the claim under the later notification was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 14:30:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 456 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114823</link>
      <description>Where exemption notifications operate in sequence, a later notification cannot be claimed before the exemption limit under the earlier notification has been fully exhausted, if the scheme does not permit simultaneous or premature switching. On a joint reading of the two notifications, the assessee, having already availed full exemption under the earlier notification, could not shift to the later notification while the earlier benefit remained unexhausted. The entitlement under the later notification arose only after the first notification&#039;s limit had been completely used, so the claim under the later notification was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>