<?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>2005 (1) TMI 500 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115176</link>
    <description>An amended exemption notification required a manufacturer, where all goods were exempt, to first utilise the entire Cenvat credit available on the last day of the month and pay only the cash balance. The condition applied to the whole month from the date the notification became operative, so monthly duty payments could not be split on a day-to-day basis to claim refund for an earlier period. The text also notes that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient for the notification to take effect, and lack of knowledge did not avoid its operation. A natural justice objection failed because no prejudice was shown and the procedural lapse did not affect the substantive position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:40:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 500 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115176</link>
      <description>An amended exemption notification required a manufacturer, where all goods were exempt, to first utilise the entire Cenvat credit available on the last day of the month and pay only the cash balance. The condition applied to the whole month from the date the notification became operative, so monthly duty payments could not be split on a day-to-day basis to claim refund for an earlier period. The text also notes that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient for the notification to take effect, and lack of knowledge did not avoid its operation. A natural justice objection failed because no prejudice was shown and the procedural lapse did not affect the substantive position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>