<?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 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116900</link>
    <description>Cement manufactured with clinker purchased from outside the factory remained eligible for concessional excise duty under Notification No. 154/90-C.E. because the notification itself contained no restriction limiting the benefit to cement made only from in-house clinker. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly according to their clear terms, and no additional condition can be implied where none is expressed. Distinguishing an earlier notification that did contain an in-factory clinker requirement, it held that the absence of such a qualifying condition was decisive and the exemption could not be denied on the ground that the input was bought externally.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:23:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116900</link>
      <description>Cement manufactured with clinker purchased from outside the factory remained eligible for concessional excise duty under Notification No. 154/90-C.E. because the notification itself contained no restriction limiting the benefit to cement made only from in-house clinker. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly according to their clear terms, and no additional condition can be implied where none is expressed. Distinguishing an earlier notification that did contain an in-factory clinker requirement, it held that the absence of such a qualifying condition was decisive and the exemption could not be denied on the ground that the input was bought externally.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>