<?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 (7) TMI 511 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116484</link>
    <description>Where a notification does not prescribe a specific form for exercising an option, a declaration filed under the applicable procedural rule may be sufficient if it clearly shows the assessee&#039;s intent to claim the exemption. The Tribunal held that filing a declaration under Rule 173B adequately evidenced the option to avail Notification No. 9/99-C.E., and the benefit could not be denied merely because no separate prescribed proforma had been used. In the absence of any statutory requirement for a distinct option form, and following prior decisions on the same notification, the demand was not sustainable and relief to the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:30:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 511 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116484</link>
      <description>Where a notification does not prescribe a specific form for exercising an option, a declaration filed under the applicable procedural rule may be sufficient if it clearly shows the assessee&#039;s intent to claim the exemption. The Tribunal held that filing a declaration under Rule 173B adequately evidenced the option to avail Notification No. 9/99-C.E., and the benefit could not be denied merely because no separate prescribed proforma had been used. In the absence of any statutory requirement for a distinct option form, and following prior decisions on the same notification, the demand was not sustainable and relief to the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>