<?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>2007 (5) TMI 480 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121887</link>
    <description>Where two exemption notifications are available for the same period, the assessee may opt for the notification granting greater relief, especially where the earlier notification provides an unconditional exemption that remains in force for the relevant period. On that basis, the later notification could not be used to deny the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for March 2003. The duty demand therefore could not be sustained, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:51:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 480 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121887</link>
      <description>Where two exemption notifications are available for the same period, the assessee may opt for the notification granting greater relief, especially where the earlier notification provides an unconditional exemption that remains in force for the relevant period. On that basis, the later notification could not be used to deny the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for March 2003. The duty demand therefore could not be sustained, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>