<?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>2006 (5) TMI 397 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119710</link>
    <description>Exemption from basic excise duty does not automatically extend to additional duty of excise on processed fabrics because each is a distinct levy. An exemption issued under the Central Excise framework must specifically cover the additional levy for that duty to be excluded. In the absence of a specific exemption from additional duty during the relevant period, liability for that duty continued and the demand was sustainable. The automatic-exemption claim was rejected, and the additional-duty demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:29:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 397 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119710</link>
      <description>Exemption from basic excise duty does not automatically extend to additional duty of excise on processed fabrics because each is a distinct levy. An exemption issued under the Central Excise framework must specifically cover the additional levy for that duty to be excluded. In the absence of a specific exemption from additional duty during the relevant period, liability for that duty continued and the demand was sustainable. The automatic-exemption claim was rejected, and the additional-duty demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>