<?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 (9) TMI 580 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120396</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications operate from the date they are issued unless the text expressly gives retrospective effect. Notification No. 25/97-C.E. was read as applying only from 07.05.1997 because it contained no language extending the exemption back to 01.03.1997. The notification had to be construed as written, and no words could be added to create an earlier effective date. The refund claim based on alleged retrospective operation therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 580 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120396</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications operate from the date they are issued unless the text expressly gives retrospective effect. Notification No. 25/97-C.E. was read as applying only from 07.05.1997 because it contained no language extending the exemption back to 01.03.1997. The notification had to be construed as written, and no words could be added to create an earlier effective date. The refund claim based on alleged retrospective operation therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>