<?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 580 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115839</link>
    <description>A taxpayer that had opted for Serial No. 39 in an approved classification list under Notification No. 53/88 could not later claim the concessional benefit under Serial No. 40 of the same notification. Once the option was exercised and accepted, the assessee was bound by that election and could not switch to another concessional entry under the same scheme. The lower authorities were therefore correct in holding that Serial No. 40 was unavailable after the earlier approved choice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:37:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 580 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115839</link>
      <description>A taxpayer that had opted for Serial No. 39 in an approved classification list under Notification No. 53/88 could not later claim the concessional benefit under Serial No. 40 of the same notification. Once the option was exercised and accepted, the assessee was bound by that election and could not switch to another concessional entry under the same scheme. The lower authorities were therefore correct in holding that Serial No. 40 was unavailable after the earlier approved choice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>